[Top] [All Lists]

Re: How to handle TIF_MEMDIE stalls?

To: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: How to handle TIF_MEMDIE stalls?
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 19:20:58 -0500
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, mhocko@xxxxxxx, dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx, oleg@xxxxxxxxxx, mgorman@xxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150221011907.2d26c979.akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <201502172123.JIE35470.QOLMVOFJSHOFFt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150217125315.GA14287@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150217225430.GJ4251@dastard> <20150219102431.GA15569@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150219225217.GY12722@dastard> <201502201936.HBH34799.SOLFFFQtHOMOJV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150220231511.GH12722@dastard> <20150221032000.GC7922@xxxxxxxxx> <20150221011907.2d26c979.akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 01:19:07AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Short term, we need to fix 3.19.x and 3.20 and that appears to be by
> applying Johannes's akpm-doesnt-know-why-it-works patch:
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -2382,8 +2382,15 @@ __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int 
> order,
>               if (high_zoneidx < ZONE_NORMAL)
>                       goto out;
>               /* The OOM killer does not compensate for light reclaim */
> -             if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> +             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 should_alloc_retry().
> +                      */
> +                     *did_some_progress = 1;
>                       goto out;
> +             }
>               /*
>                * GFP_THISNODE contains __GFP_NORETRY and we never hit this.
>                * Sanity check for bare calls of __GFP_THISNODE, not real OOM.
> Have people adequately confirmed that this gets us out of trouble?

I'd be interested in this too.  Who is seeing these failures?

Andrew, can you please use the following changelog for this patch?

From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>

mm: page_alloc: revert inadvertent !__GFP_FS retry behavior change

Historically, !__GFP_FS allocations were not allowed to invoke the OOM
killer once reclaim had failed, but nevertheless kept looping in the
allocator.  9879de7373fc ("mm: page_alloc: embed OOM killing naturally
into allocation slowpath"), which should have been a simple cleanup
patch, accidentally changed the behavior to aborting the allocation at
that point.  This creates problems with filesystem callers (?) that
currently rely on the allocator waiting for other tasks to intervene.

Revert the behavior as it shouldn't have been changed as part of a
cleanup patch.

Fixes: 9879de7373fc ("mm: page_alloc: embed OOM killing naturally into 
allocation slowpath")
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>