staging: android: lowmemorykiller: Fix task_struct leak

As it turns out, the CONFIG_PROFILING interfaces leak a
task struct if the notifier chain returns NOTIFY_OK.. doh.

This patch reworks lowmemkiller to use the new generic task
free notifier chain.

Signed-off-by: San Mehat <san@google.com>
staging: android: lowmemorykiller: Remove bitrotted codepath

Now that we're murder-synchronous, this code path will never be
called (and if it does, it doesn't tell us anything useful other
than we killed a task that was already being killed by somebody
else but hadn't gotten its' signal yet)

Signed-off-by: San Mehat <san@google.com>
lowmemorykiller: Update arguments of shrinker for 2.6.35

Change-Id: I6bb09b36639527f91c48704118acad5e50c4163f
Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccross@google.com>
lowmemorykiller: don't unregister notifier from atomic context

The lowmemorykiller registers an atomic notifier for notfication of when
the task is freed.  From this atomic notifier callback, it removes the
atomic notifier via task_free_unregister().  This is incorrect because
atomic_notifier_chain_unregister() calls syncronize_rcu(), which can
sleep, which shouldn't be done from an atomic notifier.

Fix this by registering the notifier during init, and only unregister it
if the lowmemorykiller is unloaded.

Change-Id: I1577b04e617bc2b2e39dcb490fcfc9ce660eb7ec
Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent <rabin.vincent@stericsson.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian Bejram <christian.bejram@stericsson.com>
staging: android: lowmemorykiller: Don't wait more than one second for a process to die

If a process forked and the child process was killed by the
lowmemorykiller, the lowmemory killer would be disabled until
the parent process reaped the child or it died itself.

Change-Id: I709b1a4e1b1a1970e51d26a39fcbee57977bbc7f
Signed-off-by: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@android.com>
staging: android: lowmemorykiller: Ignore shmem pages in page-cache

Change-Id: Ia54fc50b7dcabfeb71eb487c652803f83e2f3d8e
Signed-off-by: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@android.com>
lowmemorykiller: Account for ZONE_MOVABLE during hotplug.

When a memory section is offlined, lmk would be invoked to
create room to migrate pages if required. When this happens
lmk should discount any free memory in the section being
offlined for its heuristics.

Change-Id: I79d8e332451cbb6d51735836b6a19bded01dfad9
Signed-off-by: Naveen Ramaraj <nramaraj@codeaurora.org>

Conflicts:

	drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
Staging: android: fixed 80 characters warnings in lowmemorykiller.c

This patch fixes some 80 chatacters limit warnings in the lowmemorykiller.c file

Signed-off-by: Marco Navarra <fromenglish@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
staging: android/lowmemorykiller: Don't grab tasklist_lock

Grabbing tasklist_lock has its disadvantages, i.e. it blocks
process creation and destruction. If there are lots of processes,
blocking doesn't sound as a great idea.

For LMK, it is sufficient to surround tasks list traverse with
rcu_read_{,un}lock().

>From now on using force_sig() is not safe, as it can race with an
already exiting task, so we use send_sig() now. As a downside, it
won't kill PID namespace init processes, but that's not what we
want anyway.

Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
staging: android/lowmemorykiller: Better mm handling

LMK should not directly check for task->mm. The reason is that the
process' threads may exit or detach its mm via use_mm(), but other
threads may still have a valid mm. To catch this we use
find_lock_task_mm(), which walks up all threads and returns an
appropriate task (with lock held).

Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@linaro.org>
Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
oom: check PF_KTHREAD instead of !mm to skip kthreads

select_bad_process() thinks a kernel thread can't have ->mm != NULL, this
is not true due to use_mm().

Change the code to check PF_KTHREAD.

Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
oom: PF_EXITING check should take mm into account

select_bad_process() checks PF_EXITING to detect the task which is going
to release its memory, but the logic is very wrong.

	- a single process P with the dead group leader disables
	  select_bad_process() completely, it will always return
	  ERR_PTR() while P can live forever

	- if the PF_EXITING task has already released its ->mm
	  it doesn't make sense to expect it is goiing to free
	  more memory (except task_struct/etc)

Change the code to ignore the PF_EXITING tasks without ->mm.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>
Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
oom: introduce find_lock_task_mm() to fix !mm false positives

Almost all ->mm == NULL checks in oom_kill.c are wrong.

The current code assumes that the task without ->mm has already released
its memory and ignores the process.  However this is not necessarily true
when this process is multithreaded, other live sub-threads can use this
->mm.

- Remove the "if (!p->mm)" check in select_bad_process(), it is
  just wrong.

- Add the new helper, find_lock_task_mm(), which finds the live
  thread which uses the memory and takes task_lock() to pin ->mm

- change oom_badness() to use this helper instead of just checking
  ->mm != NULL.

- As David pointed out, select_bad_process() must never choose the
  task without ->mm, but no matter what oom_badness() returns the
  task can be chosen if nothing else has been found yet.

  Change oom_badness() to return int, change it to return -1 if
  find_lock_task_mm() fails, and change select_bad_process() to
  check points >= 0.

Note! This patch is not enough, we need more changes.

	- oom_badness() was fixed, but oom_kill_task() still ignores
	  the task without ->mm

	- oom_forkbomb_penalty() should use find_lock_task_mm() too,
	  and it also needs other changes to actually find the first
	  first-descendant children

This will be addressed later.

[kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com: use in badness(), __oom_kill_task()]
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
oom: dump_tasks use find_lock_task_mm too

dump_task() should use find_lock_task_mm() too. It is necessary for
protecting task-exiting race.

dump_tasks() currently filters any task that does not have an attached
->mm since it incorrectly assumes that it must either be in the process of
exiting and has detached its memory or that it's a kernel thread;
multithreaded tasks may actually have subthreads that have a valid ->mm
pointer and thus those threads should actually be displayed.  This change
finds those threads, if they exist, and emit their information along with
the rest of the candidate tasks for kill.

Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
oom: improve commentary in dump_tasks()

The comments in dump_tasks() should be updated to be more clear about why
tasks are filtered and how they are filtered by its argument.

An unnecessary comment concerning a check for is_global_init() is removed
since it isn't of importance.

Suggested-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
oom: dump_tasks use find_lock_task_mm too fix

When find_lock_task_mm() returns a thread other than p in dump_tasks(),
its name should be displayed instead.  This is the thread that will be
targeted by the oom killer, not its mm-less parent.

This also allows us to safely dereference task->comm without needing
get_task_comm().

While we're here, remove the cast on task_cpu(task) as Andrew suggested.

Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
oom: give current access to memory reserves if it has been killed

It's possible to livelock the page allocator if a thread has mm->mmap_sem
and fails to make forward progress because the oom killer selects another
thread sharing the same ->mm to kill that cannot exit until the semaphore
is dropped.

The oom killer will not kill multiple tasks at the same time; each oom
killed task must exit before another task may be killed.  Thus, if one
thread is holding mm->mmap_sem and cannot allocate memory, all threads
sharing the same ->mm are blocked from exiting as well.  In the oom kill
case, that means the thread holding mm->mmap_sem will never free
additional memory since it cannot get access to memory reserves and the
thread that depends on it with access to memory reserves cannot exit
because it cannot acquire the semaphore.  Thus, the page allocators
livelocks.

When the oom killer is called and current happens to have a pending
SIGKILL, this patch automatically gives it access to memory reserves and
returns.  Upon returning to the page allocator, its allocation will
hopefully succeed so it can quickly exit and free its memory.  If not, the
page allocator will fail the allocation if it is not __GFP_NOFAIL.

Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
oom: avoid sending exiting tasks a SIGKILL

It's unnecessary to SIGKILL a task that is already PF_EXITING and can
actually cause a NULL pointer dereference of the sighand if it has already
been detached.  Instead, simply set TIF_MEMDIE so it has access to memory
reserves and can quickly exit as the comment implies.

Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset

Tasks that do not share the same set of allowed nodes with the task that
triggered the oom should not be considered as candidates for oom kill.

Tasks in other cpusets with a disjoint set of mems would be unfairly
penalized otherwise because of oom conditions elsewhere; an extreme
example could unfairly kill all other applications on the system if a
single task in a user's cpuset sets itself to OOM_DISABLE and then uses
more memory than allowed.

Killing tasks outside of current's cpuset rarely would free memory for
current anyway.  To use a sane heuristic, we must ensure that killing a
task would likely free memory for current and avoid needlessly killing
others at all costs just because their potential memory freeing is
unknown.  It is better to kill current than another task needlessly.

Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Acked-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
oom: sacrifice child with highest badness score for parent

When a task is chosen for oom kill, the oom killer first attempts to
sacrifice a child not sharing its parent's memory instead.  Unfortunately,
this often kills in a seemingly random fashion based on the ordering of
the selected task's child list.  Additionally, it is not guaranteed at all
to free a large amount of memory that we need to prevent additional oom
killing in the very near future.

Instead, we now only attempt to sacrifice the worst child not sharing its
parent's memory, if one exists.  The worst child is indicated with the
highest badness() score.  This serves two advantages: we kill a
memory-hogging task more often, and we allow the configurable
/proc/pid/oom_adj value to be considered as a factor in which child to
kill.

Reviewers may observe that the previous implementation would iterate
through the children and attempt to kill each until one was successful and
then the parent if none were found while the new code simply kills the
most memory-hogging task or the parent.  Note that the only time
oom_kill_task() fails, however, is when a child does not have an mm or has
a /proc/pid/oom_adj of OOM_DISABLE.  badness() returns 0 for both cases,
so the final oom_kill_task() will always succeed.

Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Acked-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>