Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:44:14 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? |
| |
On 09/20, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > In this case the workqueue thread will block. > > What workqueue thread?
I must have missed something. I can't understand your and Michal's concerns.
> pagefault_out_of_memory -> > out_of_memory -> > oom_kill_process > > as far as I can tell, this can be called by any task. Now, that > pagefault case should only happen when the page fault comes from user > space, but we also have > > __alloc_pages_slowpath -> > __alloc_pages_may_oom -> > out_of_memory -> > oom_kill_process > > which can be called from just about any context (but atomic > allocations will never get here, so it can schedule etc).
So yes, in general oom_kill_process() can't call oom_unmap_func() directly. That is why the patch uses queue_work(oom_unmap_func). The workqueue thread takes mmap_sem and frees the memory allocated by user space.
If this can lead to deadlock somehow, then we can hit the same deadlock when an oom-killed thread calls exit_mm().
> So what's your point?
This can help if the killed process refuse to die and (of course) it doesn't hold the mmap_sem for writing. Say, it waits for some mutex held by the task which tries to alloc the memory and triggers oom.
> Explain again just how do you guarantee that you > can take the mmap_sem.
This is not guaranteed, down_read(mmap_sem) can block forever. But this means that the (killed) victim never drops mmap_sem / never exits, so we lose anyway. We have no memory, oom-killer is blocked, etc.
Oleg.
| |