LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Robert Kolchmeyer <rkolchmeyer@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [patch v2] mm, oom: prevent soft lockup on memcg oom for UP systems Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:42:19 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200318094219.GE21362@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2003171752030.115787@chino.kir.corp.google.com> On Tue 17-03-20 17:55:04, David Rientjes wrote: > When a process is oom killed as a result of memcg limits and the victim > is waiting to exit, nothing ends up actually yielding the processor back > to the victim on UP systems with preemption disabled. Instead, the > charging process simply loops in memcg reclaim and eventually soft > lockups. It seems that my request to describe the setup got ignored. Sigh. > Memory cgroup out of memory: Killed process 808 (repro) total-vm:41944kB, > anon-rss:35344kB, file-rss:504kB, shmem-rss:0kB, UID:0 pgtables:108kB > oom_score_adj:0 > watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 23s! [repro:806] > CPU: 0 PID: 806 Comm: repro Not tainted 5.6.0-rc5+ #136 > RIP: 0010:shrink_lruvec+0x4e9/0xa40 > ... > Call Trace: > shrink_node+0x40d/0x7d0 > do_try_to_free_pages+0x13f/0x470 > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages+0x16d/0x230 > try_charge+0x247/0xac0 > mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x10a/0x220 > mem_cgroup_try_charge_delay+0x1e/0x40 > handle_mm_fault+0xdf2/0x15f0 > do_user_addr_fault+0x21f/0x420 > page_fault+0x2f/0x40 > > Make sure that once the oom killer has been called that we forcibly yield > if current is not the chosen victim regardless of priority to allow for > memory freeing. The same situation can theoretically occur in the page > allocator, so do this after dropping oom_lock there as well. I would have prefered the cond_resched solution proposed previously but I can live with this as well. I would just ask to add more information to the changelog. E.g. " We used to have a short sleep after the oom handling but 9bfe5ded054b ("mm, oom: remove sleep from under oom_lock") has removed it because sleep inside the oom_lock is dangerous. This patch restores the sleep outside of the lock. " > Suggested-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> > Tested-by: Robert Kolchmeyer <rkolchmeyer@google.com> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> > --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 2 ++ > mm/page_alloc.c | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -1576,6 +1576,8 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask, > */ > ret = should_force_charge() || out_of_memory(&oc); > mutex_unlock(&oom_lock); > + if (!fatal_signal_pending(current)) > + schedule_timeout_killable(1); Check for fatal_signal_pending is redundant. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-18 9:42 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-03-10 21:39 [patch] mm, oom: prevent soft lockup on memcg oom for UP systems David Rientjes 2020-03-10 22:05 ` Tetsuo Handa 2020-03-10 22:55 ` David Rientjes 2020-03-11 9:34 ` Tetsuo Handa 2020-03-11 19:38 ` David Rientjes 2020-03-11 22:04 ` Tetsuo Handa 2020-03-11 22:14 ` David Rientjes 2020-03-12 0:12 ` Tetsuo Handa 2020-03-12 18:07 ` David Rientjes 2020-03-12 22:32 ` Andrew Morton 2020-03-16 9:31 ` Michal Hocko 2020-03-16 10:04 ` Tetsuo Handa 2020-03-16 10:14 ` Michal Hocko 2020-03-13 0:15 ` Tetsuo Handa 2020-03-13 22:01 ` David Rientjes 2020-03-13 23:15 ` Tetsuo Handa 2020-03-13 23:32 ` Tetsuo Handa 2020-03-16 23:59 ` David Rientjes 2020-03-17 3:18 ` Tetsuo Handa 2020-03-17 4:09 ` David Rientjes 2020-03-18 0:55 ` [patch v2] " David Rientjes 2020-03-18 9:42 ` Michal Hocko [this message] 2020-03-18 21:40 ` David Rientjes 2020-03-18 22:03 ` [patch v3] " David Rientjes 2020-03-19 7:09 ` Michal Hocko 2020-03-12 4:23 ` [patch] " Tetsuo Handa 2020-03-10 22:10 ` Michal Hocko 2020-03-10 23:02 ` David Rientjes 2020-03-11 8:27 ` Michal Hocko 2020-03-11 19:45 ` David Rientjes 2020-03-12 8:32 ` Michal Hocko 2020-03-12 18:20 ` David Rientjes 2020-03-12 20:16 ` Michal Hocko 2020-03-16 9:32 ` Michal Hocko 2020-03-11 0:18 ` Andrew Morton 2020-03-11 0:34 ` David Rientjes 2020-03-11 8:36 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20200318094219.GE21362@dhcp22.suse.cz \ --to=mhocko@kernel.org \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \ --cc=rientjes@google.com \ --cc=rkolchmeyer@google.com \ --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).