lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory?
From
Date
On 09/19/15 15:24, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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?

Potentially stupid question that others may be asking: Is it legal to
return EINTR from mmap() to let a SIGKILL from the OOM handler punch the
task out of the kernel and back to userspace?

(sorry for the dupe btw, new email client snuck in html and I got bounced)

> 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
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-20 01:21    [W:0.144 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site