On 2017/10/26 16:49, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 25-10-17 15:49:21, Greg Thelen wrote:
>> Johannes Weiner <han...@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 09:00:57PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>>> So just to make it clear you would be OK with the retry on successful
>>>> OOM killer invocation and force charge on oom failure, right?
>>>
>>> Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me.
>>
>> Assuming we're talking about retrying within try_charge(), then there's
>> a detail to iron out...
>>
>> If there is a pending oom victim blocked on a lock held by try_charge()
>> caller
>> (the "#2 Locks" case), then I think repeated calls to out_of_memory() will
>> return true until the victim either gets MMF_OOM_SKIP or disappears.
>
> true. And oom_reaper guarantees that MMF_OOM_SKIP gets set in the finit
> amount of time.
Just a confirmation. You are talking about kmemcg, aren't you? And kmemcg
depends on CONFIG_MMU=y, doesn't it? If no, there is no such guarantee.
>
>> So a force
>> charge fallback might be a needed even with oom killer successful
>> invocations.
>> Or we'll need to teach out_of_memory() to return three values (e.g.
>> NO_VICTIM,
>> NEW_VICTIM, PENDING_VICTIM) and try_charge() can loop on NEW_VICTIM.
>
> No we, really want to wait for the oom victim to do its job. The only
> thing we should be worried about is when out_of_memory doesn't invoke
> the reaper. There is only one case like that AFAIK - GFP_NOFS request. I
> have to think about this case some more. We currently fail in that case
> the request.
>
Do we really need to apply
/*
* The OOM killer does not compensate for IO-less reclaim.
* pagefault_out_of_memory lost its gfp context so we have to
* make sure exclude 0 mask - all other users should have at least
* ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM to get here.
*/
if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
return true;
unconditionally?
We can encourage !__GFP_FS allocations to use __GFP_NORETRY or
__GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL if their allocations are not important.
Then, only important !__GFP_FS allocations will be checked here.
I think that we can allow such important allocations to invoke the OOM
killer (i.e. remove this check) because situation is already hopeless
if important !__GFP_FS allocations cannot make progress.
