1. Patchew
  2. linux
  3. [PATCH v8 0/3] Improvements to Victim Process Thawing and OOM Reaper Traversal Order
  4. View patch

[PATCH v8 3/3] mm/oom_kill: The OOM reaper traverses the VMA maple tree in reverse order

zhongjinji posted 3 patches 3 weeks, 2 days ago
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH v8 3/3] mm/oom_kill: The OOM reaper traverses the VMA maple tree in reverse order
Posted by zhongjinji 3 weeks, 2 days ago 
Although the oom_reaper is delayed and it gives the oom victim chance to
clean up its address space this might take a while especially for
processes with a large address space footprint. In those cases
oom_reaper might start racing with the dying task and compete for shared
resources - e.g. page table lock contention has been observed.

Reduce those races by reaping the oom victim from the other end of the
address space.

It is also a significant improvement for process_mrelease(). When a process
is killed, process_mrelease is used to reap the killed process and often
runs concurrently with the dying task. The test data shows that after
applying the patch, lock contention is greatly reduced during the procedure
of reaping the killed process.

The test is based on arm64.

Without the patch:
|--99.57%-- oom_reaper
|    |--0.28%-- [hit in function]
|    |--73.58%-- unmap_page_range
|    |    |--8.67%-- [hit in function]
|    |    |--41.59%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
|    |    |--29.47%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
|    |    |--16.11%-- tlb_flush_mmu
|    |    |--1.66%-- folio_mark_accessed
|    |    |--0.74%-- free_swap_and_cache_nr
|    |    |--0.69%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
|    |--19.94%-- tlb_finish_mmu
|    |--3.21%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
|    |--1.16%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
|    |--1.16%-- folio_mark_accessed
|    |--0.36%-- __pte_offset_map_lock

With the patch:
|--99.53%-- oom_reaper
|    |--55.77%-- unmap_page_range
|    |    |--20.49%-- [hit in function]
|    |    |--58.30%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
|    |    |--11.48%-- tlb_flush_mmu
|    |    |--3.33%-- folio_mark_accessed
|    |    |--2.65%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
|    |    |--1.37%-- _raw_spin_lock
|    |    |--0.68%-- __mod_lruvec_page_state
|    |    |--0.51%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
|    |--32.21%-- tlb_finish_mmu
|    |--6.93%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
|    |--1.90%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
|    |--1.55%-- folio_mark_accessed
|    |--0.69%-- __pte_offset_map_lock

Signed-off-by: zhongjinji <zhongjinji@honor.com>
Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
---
 mm/oom_kill.c | 10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index ffa50a1f0132..52d285da5ba4 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
 {
 	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
 	bool ret = true;
-	VMA_ITERATOR(vmi, mm, 0);
+	MA_STATE(mas, &mm->mm_mt, ULONG_MAX, ULONG_MAX);
 
 	/*
 	 * Tell all users of get_user/copy_from_user etc... that the content
@@ -526,7 +526,13 @@ static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
 	 */
 	set_bit(MMF_UNSTABLE, &mm->flags);
 
-	for_each_vma(vmi, vma) {
+	/*
+	 * It might start racing with the dying task and compete for shared
+	 * resources - e.g. page table lock contention has been observed.
+	 * Reduce those races by reaping the oom victim from the other end
+	 * of the address space.
+	 */
+	mas_for_each_rev(&mas, vma, 0) {
 		if (vma->vm_flags & (VM_HUGETLB|VM_PFNMAP))
 			continue;
 
-- 
2.17.1
Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] mm/oom_kill: The OOM reaper traverses the VMA maple tree in reverse order
Posted by Suren Baghdasaryan 3 weeks, 2 days ago 
On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:07 AM zhongjinji <zhongjinji@honor.com> wrote:
>
> Although the oom_reaper is delayed and it gives the oom victim chance to
> clean up its address space this might take a while especially for
> processes with a large address space footprint. In those cases
> oom_reaper might start racing with the dying task and compete for shared
> resources - e.g. page table lock contention has been observed.
>
> Reduce those races by reaping the oom victim from the other end of the
> address space.
>
> It is also a significant improvement for process_mrelease(). When a process
> is killed, process_mrelease is used to reap the killed process and often
> runs concurrently with the dying task. The test data shows that after
> applying the patch, lock contention is greatly reduced during the procedure
> of reaping the killed process.
>
> The test is based on arm64.
>
> Without the patch:
> |--99.57%-- oom_reaper
> |    |--0.28%-- [hit in function]
> |    |--73.58%-- unmap_page_range
> |    |    |--8.67%-- [hit in function]
> |    |    |--41.59%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
> |    |    |--29.47%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> |    |    |--16.11%-- tlb_flush_mmu
> |    |    |--1.66%-- folio_mark_accessed
> |    |    |--0.74%-- free_swap_and_cache_nr
> |    |    |--0.69%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
> |    |--19.94%-- tlb_finish_mmu
> |    |--3.21%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> |    |--1.16%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
> |    |--1.16%-- folio_mark_accessed
> |    |--0.36%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
>
> With the patch:
> |--99.53%-- oom_reaper
> |    |--55.77%-- unmap_page_range
> |    |    |--20.49%-- [hit in function]
> |    |    |--58.30%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> |    |    |--11.48%-- tlb_flush_mmu
> |    |    |--3.33%-- folio_mark_accessed
> |    |    |--2.65%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
> |    |    |--1.37%-- _raw_spin_lock
> |    |    |--0.68%-- __mod_lruvec_page_state
> |    |    |--0.51%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
> |    |--32.21%-- tlb_finish_mmu
> |    |--6.93%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> |    |--1.90%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
> |    |--1.55%-- folio_mark_accessed
> |    |--0.69%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
>
> Signed-off-by: zhongjinji <zhongjinji@honor.com>
> Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
> Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

Reviewed-by: Suren Baghdsaryan <surenb@google.com>

> ---
>  mm/oom_kill.c | 10 ++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index ffa50a1f0132..52d285da5ba4 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
>  {
>         struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>         bool ret = true;
> -       VMA_ITERATOR(vmi, mm, 0);
> +       MA_STATE(mas, &mm->mm_mt, ULONG_MAX, ULONG_MAX);
>
>         /*
>          * Tell all users of get_user/copy_from_user etc... that the content
> @@ -526,7 +526,13 @@ static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
>          */
>         set_bit(MMF_UNSTABLE, &mm->flags);
>
> -       for_each_vma(vmi, vma) {
> +       /*
> +        * It might start racing with the dying task and compete for shared
> +        * resources - e.g. page table lock contention has been observed.
> +        * Reduce those races by reaping the oom victim from the other end
> +        * of the address space.
> +        */
> +       mas_for_each_rev(&mas, vma, 0) {
>                 if (vma->vm_flags & (VM_HUGETLB|VM_PFNMAP))
>                         continue;
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] mm/oom_kill: The OOM reaper traverses the VMA maple tree in reverse order
Posted by Suren Baghdasaryan 3 weeks, 2 days ago 
On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 9:29 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:07 AM zhongjinji <zhongjinji@honor.com> wrote:
> >
> > Although the oom_reaper is delayed and it gives the oom victim chance to
> > clean up its address space this might take a while especially for
> > processes with a large address space footprint. In those cases
> > oom_reaper might start racing with the dying task and compete for shared
> > resources - e.g. page table lock contention has been observed.
> >
> > Reduce those races by reaping the oom victim from the other end of the
> > address space.
> >
> > It is also a significant improvement for process_mrelease(). When a process
> > is killed, process_mrelease is used to reap the killed process and often
> > runs concurrently with the dying task. The test data shows that after
> > applying the patch, lock contention is greatly reduced during the procedure
> > of reaping the killed process.
> >
> > The test is based on arm64.
> >
> > Without the patch:
> > |--99.57%-- oom_reaper
> > |    |--0.28%-- [hit in function]
> > |    |--73.58%-- unmap_page_range
> > |    |    |--8.67%-- [hit in function]
> > |    |    |--41.59%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
> > |    |    |--29.47%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> > |    |    |--16.11%-- tlb_flush_mmu
> > |    |    |--1.66%-- folio_mark_accessed
> > |    |    |--0.74%-- free_swap_and_cache_nr
> > |    |    |--0.69%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
> > |    |--19.94%-- tlb_finish_mmu
> > |    |--3.21%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> > |    |--1.16%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
> > |    |--1.16%-- folio_mark_accessed
> > |    |--0.36%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
> >
> > With the patch:
> > |--99.53%-- oom_reaper
> > |    |--55.77%-- unmap_page_range
> > |    |    |--20.49%-- [hit in function]
> > |    |    |--58.30%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> > |    |    |--11.48%-- tlb_flush_mmu
> > |    |    |--3.33%-- folio_mark_accessed
> > |    |    |--2.65%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
> > |    |    |--1.37%-- _raw_spin_lock
> > |    |    |--0.68%-- __mod_lruvec_page_state
> > |    |    |--0.51%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
> > |    |--32.21%-- tlb_finish_mmu
> > |    |--6.93%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> > |    |--1.90%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
> > |    |--1.55%-- folio_mark_accessed
> > |    |--0.69%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
> >
> > Signed-off-by: zhongjinji <zhongjinji@honor.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
> > Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
> > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Suren Baghdsaryan <surenb@google.com>

Apparently I misspelled my own last name :)

Reviewed-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>

>
> > ---
> >  mm/oom_kill.c | 10 ++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > index ffa50a1f0132..52d285da5ba4 100644
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >  {
> >         struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> >         bool ret = true;
> > -       VMA_ITERATOR(vmi, mm, 0);
> > +       MA_STATE(mas, &mm->mm_mt, ULONG_MAX, ULONG_MAX);
> >
> >         /*
> >          * Tell all users of get_user/copy_from_user etc... that the content
> > @@ -526,7 +526,13 @@ static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >          */
> >         set_bit(MMF_UNSTABLE, &mm->flags);
> >
> > -       for_each_vma(vmi, vma) {
> > +       /*
> > +        * It might start racing with the dying task and compete for shared
> > +        * resources - e.g. page table lock contention has been observed.
> > +        * Reduce those races by reaping the oom victim from the other end
> > +        * of the address space.
> > +        */
> > +       mas_for_each_rev(&mas, vma, 0) {
> >                 if (vma->vm_flags & (VM_HUGETLB|VM_PFNMAP))
> >                         continue;
> >
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >

Patchew 2.1-devel-b67e4c2

© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.