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 09/20, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> 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.

Why? See my reply to Linus's email.

Just in case, yes sure the unconditonal down_read() is suboptimal, but
this is minor compared to other problems we need to solve.

> > 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.

Yes, but see the ->vm_flags check in madvise_dontneed().

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-20 15:21    [W:0.159 / U:23.832 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site