lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory?
From
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> +
> +static void oom_unmap_func(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + struct mm_struct *mm = xchg(&oom_unmap_mm, NULL);
> +
> + if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&mm->mm_users))
> + return;
> +
> + // If this is not safe we can do use_mm() + unuse_mm()
> + down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);

I don't think this is safe.

What makes you sure that we might not deadlock on the mmap_sem here?
For all we know, the process that is going out of memory is in the
middle of a mmap(), and already holds the mmap_sem for writing. No?

So at the very least that needs to be a trylock, I think. And I'm not
sure zap_page_range() is ok with the mmap_sem only held for reading.
Normally our rule is that you can *populate* the page tables
concurrently, but you can't tear the down.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-20 00:41    [W:0.209 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site