lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 00/12] mm: page_alloc: improve OOM mechanism and policy
On Sat 11-04-15 16:29:26, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > The argument here was always that NOFS allocations are very limited in
> > their reclaim powers and will trigger OOM prematurely. However, the
> > way we limit dirty memory these days forces most cache to be clean at
> > all times, and direct reclaim in general hasn't been allowed to issue
> > page writeback for quite some time. So these days, NOFS reclaim isn't
> > really weaker than regular direct reclaim. The only exception is that
> > it might block writeback, so we'd go OOM if the only reclaimables left
> > were dirty pages against that filesystem. That should be acceptable.
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 47981c5e54c3..fe3cb2b0b85b 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -2367,16 +2367,6 @@ __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int alloc_flags,
> > /* The OOM killer does not needlessly kill tasks for lowmem */
> > if (ac->high_zoneidx < ZONE_NORMAL)
> > goto out;
> > - /* The OOM killer does not compensate for IO-less reclaim */
> > - if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)) {
> > - /*
> > - * XXX: Page reclaim didn't yield anything,
> > - * and the OOM killer can't be invoked, but
> > - * keep looping as per tradition.
> > - */
> > - *did_some_progress = 1;
> > - goto out;
> > - }
> > if (pm_suspended_storage())
> > goto out;
> > /* The OOM killer may not free memory on a specific node */
> >
>
> I think this change will allow calling out_of_memory() which results in
> "oom_kill_process() is trivially called via pagefault_out_of_memory()"
> problem described in https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/3/18/219 .
>
> I myself think that we should trigger OOM killer for !__GFP_FS allocation
> in order to make forward progress in case the OOM victim is blocked.
> So, my question about this change is whether we can accept involving OOM
> killer from page fault, no matter how trivially OOM killer will kill some
> process?

We trigger OOM killer from the page fault path for ages. In fact the memcg
will trigger memcg OOM killer _only_ from the page fault path because
this context is safe as we do not sit on any locks at the time.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-13 15:01    [W:0.145 / U:1.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site