This patchset addresses a race which was described in the changelog for
5695be142e ("OOM, PM: OOM killed task shouldn't escape PM suspend"):
: PM freezer relies on having all tasks frozen by the time devices are
: getting frozen so that no task will touch them while they are getting
: frozen. But OOM killer is allowed to kill an already frozen task in order
: to handle OOM situtation. In order to protect from late wake ups OOM
: killer is disabled after all tasks are frozen. This, however, still keeps
: a window open when a killed task didn't manage to die by the time
: freeze_processes finishes.
The original patch hasn't closed the race window completely because that
would require a more complex solution as it can be seen by this patchset.
The primary motivation was to close the race condition between OOM killer
and PM freezer _completely_. As Tejun pointed out, even though the race
condition is unlikely the harder it would be to debug weird bugs deep in
the PM freezer when the debugging options are reduced considerably. I can
only speculate what might happen when a task is still runnable
unexpectedly.
On a plus side and as a side effect the oom enable/disable has a better
(full barrier) semantic without polluting hot paths.
I have tested the series in KVM with 100M RAM:
- many small tasks (20M anon mmap) which are triggering OOM continually
- s2ram which resumes automatically is triggered in a loop
echo processors > /sys/power/pm_test
while true
do
echo mem > /sys/power/state
sleep 1s
done
- simple module which allocates and frees 20M in 8K chunks. If it sees
freezing(current) then it tries another round of allocation before calling
try_to_freeze
- debugging messages of PM stages and OOM killer enable/disable/fail added
and unmark_oom_victim is delayed by 1s after it clears TIF_MEMDIE and before
it wakes up waiters.
- rebased on top of the current mmotm which means some necessary updates
in mm/oom_kill.c. mark_tsk_oom_victim is now called under task_lock but
I think this should be OK because __thaw_task shouldn't interfere with any
locking down wake_up_process. Oleg?
As expected there are no OOM killed tasks after oom is disabled and
allocations requested by the kernel thread are failing after all the tasks
are frozen and OOM disabled. I wasn't able to catch a race where
oom_killer_disable would really have to wait but I kinda expected the race
is really unlikely.
[ 242.609330] Killed process 2992 (mem_eater) total-vm:24412kB, anon-rss:2164kB, file-rss:4kB
[ 243.628071] Unmarking 2992 OOM victim. oom_victims: 1
[ 243.636072] (elapsed 2.837 seconds) done.
[ 243.641985] Trying to disable OOM killer
[ 243.643032] Waiting for concurent OOM victims
[ 243.644342] OOM killer disabled
[ 243.645447] Freezing remaining freezable tasks ... (elapsed 0.005 seconds) done.
[ 243.652983] Suspending console(s) (use no_console_suspend to debug)
[ 243.903299] kmem_eater: page allocation failure: order:1, mode:0x204010
[...]
[ 243.992600] PM: suspend of devices complete after 336.667 msecs
[ 243.993264] PM: late suspend of devices complete after 0.660 msecs
[ 243.994713] PM: noirq suspend of devices complete after 1.446 msecs
[ 243.994717] ACPI: Preparing to enter system sleep state S3
[ 243.994795] PM: Saving platform NVS memory
[ 243.994796] Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
The first 2 patches are simple cleanups for OOM. They should go in
regardless the rest IMO.
Patches 3 and 4 are trivial printk -> pr_info conversion and they should
go in ditto.
The main patch is the last one and I would appreciate acks from Tejun and
Rafael. I think the OOM part should be OK (except for __thaw_task vs.
task_lock where a look from Oleg would appreciated) but I am not so sure I
haven't screwed anything in the freezer code. I have found several
surprises there.
This patch (of 5):
This patch is just a preparatory and it doesn't introduce any functional
change.
Note:
I am utterly unhappy about lowmemory killer abusing TIF_MEMDIE just to
wait for the oom victim and to prevent from new killing. This is
just a side effect of the flag. The primary meaning is to give the oom
victim access to the memory reserves and that shouldn't be necessary
here.
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
49550b6055