lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: general protection fault in oom_unkillable_task
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 9:49 AM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> On 2019/06/16 1:11, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 6:50 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> >> index 5a58778c91d4..43eb479a5dc7 100644
> >> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> >> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> >> @@ -161,8 +161,8 @@ static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p,
> >> return true;
> >>
> >> /* When mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() and p is not member of the group */
> >> - if (memcg && !task_in_mem_cgroup(p, memcg))
> >> - return true;
> >> + if (memcg)
> >> + return false;
> >
> > This will break the dump_tasks() usage of oom_unkillable_task(). We
> > can change dump_tasks() to traverse processes like
> > mem_cgroup_scan_tasks() for memcg OOMs.
>
> While dump_tasks() traverses only each thread group, mem_cgroup_scan_tasks()
> traverses each thread.

I think mem_cgroup_scan_tasks() traversing threads is not intentional
and css_task_iter_start in it should use CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS as the
oom killer only cares about the processes or more specifically
mm_struct (though two different thread groups can have same mm_struct
but that is fine).

> To avoid printk()ing all threads in a thread group,
> moving that check to
>
> if (memcg && !task_in_mem_cgroup(p, memcg))
> continue;
>
> in dump_tasks() is better?
>
> >
> >>
> >> /* p may not have freeable memory in nodemask */
> >> if (!has_intersects_mems_allowed(p, nodemask))
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-15 20:50    [W:0.136 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site