On Fri 08-12-17 01:26:46, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017, David Rientjes wrote:
> 
> > I'm backporting and testing the following patch against Linus's tree.  To 
> > clarify an earlier point, we don't actually have any change from upstream 
> > code that allows for free_pgtables() before the 
> > set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP);down_write();up_write() cycle.
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/oom.h b/include/linux/oom.h
> > --- a/include/linux/oom.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/oom.h
> > @@ -66,6 +66,15 @@ static inline bool tsk_is_oom_victim(struct task_struct 
> > * tsk)
> >     return tsk->signal->oom_mm;
> >  }
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * Use this helper if tsk->mm != mm and the victim mm needs a special
> > + * handling. This is guaranteed to stay true after once set.
> > + */
> > +static inline bool mm_is_oom_victim(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > +{
> > +   return test_bit(MMF_OOM_VICTIM, &mm->flags);
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * Checks whether a page fault on the given mm is still reliable.
> >   * This is no longer true if the oom reaper started to reap the
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched/coredump.h b/include/linux/sched/coredump.h
> > --- a/include/linux/sched/coredump.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched/coredump.h
> > @@ -71,6 +71,7 @@ static inline int get_dumpable(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >  #define MMF_HUGE_ZERO_PAGE 23      /* mm has ever used the global huge 
> > zero page */
> >  #define MMF_DISABLE_THP            24      /* disable THP for all VMAs */
> >  #define MMF_DISABLE_THP_MASK       (1 << MMF_DISABLE_THP)
> > +#define MMF_OOM_VICTIM             25      /* mm is the oom victim */
> >  
> >  #define MMF_INIT_MASK              (MMF_DUMPABLE_MASK | 
> > MMF_DUMP_FILTER_MASK |\
> >                              MMF_DISABLE_THP_MASK)
> > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> > --- a/mm/mmap.c
> > +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> > @@ -3019,20 +3019,20 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >     /* Use -1 here to ensure all VMAs in the mm are unmapped */
> >     unmap_vmas(&tlb, vma, 0, -1);
> >  
> > -   set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags);
> > -   if (unlikely(tsk_is_oom_victim(current))) {
> > +   if (unlikely(mm_is_oom_victim(mm))) {
> >             /*
> >              * Wait for oom_reap_task() to stop working on this
> >              * mm. Because MMF_OOM_SKIP is already set before
> >              * calling down_read(), oom_reap_task() will not run
> >              * on this "mm" post up_write().
> >              *
> > -            * tsk_is_oom_victim() cannot be set from under us
> > +            * mm_is_oom_victim() cannot be set from under us
> >              * either because current->mm is already set to NULL
> >              * under task_lock before calling mmput and oom_mm is
> >              * set not NULL by the OOM killer only if current->mm
> >              * is found not NULL while holding the task_lock.
> >              */
> > +           set_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags);
> >             down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> >             up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> >     }
> > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -683,8 +683,10 @@ static void mark_oom_victim(struct task_struct *tsk)
> >             return;
> >  
> >     /* oom_mm is bound to the signal struct life time. */
> > -   if (!cmpxchg(&tsk->signal->oom_mm, NULL, mm))
> > +   if (!cmpxchg(&tsk->signal->oom_mm, NULL, mm)) {
> >             mmgrab(tsk->signal->oom_mm);
> > +           set_bit(MMF_OOM_VICTIM, &mm->flags);
> > +   }
> >  
> >     /*
> >      * Make sure that the task is woken up from uninterruptible sleep
> > 
> 
> This passes all functional testing that I have and I can create a 
> synthetic testcase that can trigger at least MMF_OOM_VICTIM getting set 
> while oom_reaper is still working on an mm that this prevents, so feel 
> free to add an
> 
>       Acked-by: David Rientjes <rient...@google.com>
> 
> with a variant of your previous changelogs.  Thanks!
> 
> I think it would appropriate to cc stable for 4.14 and add a
> 
> Fixes: 212925802454 ("mm: oom: let oom_reap_task and exit_mmap run 
> concurrently")
> 
> if nobody disagrees, which I think you may have already done on a previous 
> iteration.

Thanks for your testing! I will repost the patch later today.

> We can still discuss if there are any VM_LOCKED subtleties in the this 
> thread, but I have no evidence that it is responsible for any issues.

Yes this is worth a separate discussion.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Reply via email to