lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory?
On Sat 19-09-15 15:24:02, 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?
>
> So at the very least that needs to be a trylock, I think.

Agreed.

> 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

Actually mmap_sem for reading should be sufficient because we do not
alter the layout. Both MADV_DONTNEED and MADV_FREE require read mmap_sem
for example.

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-20 12:01    [W:0.167 / U:11.792 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site