Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 1:06 PM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 10:01 AM Roman Gushchin
>> > <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Introduce a bpf struct ops for implementing custom OOM handling policies.
>> >>
>> >> The struct ops provides the bpf_handle_out_of_memory() callback,
>> >> which expected to return 1 if it was able to free some memory and 0
>> >> otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> In the latter case it's guaranteed that the in-kernel OOM killer will
>> >> be invoked. Otherwise the kernel also checks the bpf_memory_freed
>> >> field of the oom_control structure, which is expected to be set by
>> >> kfuncs suitable for releasing memory. It's a safety mechanism which
>> >> prevents a bpf program to claim forward progress without actually
>> >> releasing memory. The callback program is sleepable to enable using
>> >> iterators, e.g. cgroup iterators.
>> >>
>> >> The callback receives struct oom_control as an argument, so it can
>> >> easily filter out OOM's it doesn't want to handle, e.g. global vs
>> >> memcg OOM's.
>> >>
>> >> The callback is executed just before the kernel victim task selection
>> >> algorithm, so all heuristics and sysctls like panic on oom,
>> >> sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task and sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task
>> >> are respected.
>> >>
>> >> The struct ops also has the name field, which allows to define a
>> >> custom name for the implemented policy. It's printed in the OOM report
>> >> in the oom_policy=<policy> format. "default" is printed if bpf is not
>> >> used or policy name is not specified.
>> >>
>> >> [ 112.696676] test_progs invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xcc0(GFP_KERNEL), order=0, oom_score_adj=0
>> >> oom_policy=bpf_test_policy
>> >> [ 112.698160] CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 660 Comm: test_progs Not tainted 6.16.0-00015-gf09eb0d6badc #102 PREEMPT(full)
>> >> [ 112.698165] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.17.0-5.fc42 04/01/2014
>> >> [ 112.698167] Call Trace:
>> >> [ 112.698177] <TASK>
>> >> [ 112.698182] dump_stack_lvl+0x4d/0x70
>> >> [ 112.698192] dump_header+0x59/0x1c6
>> >> [ 112.698199] oom_kill_process.cold+0x8/0xef
>> >> [ 112.698206] bpf_oom_kill_process+0x59/0xb0
>> >> [ 112.698216] bpf_prog_7ecad0f36a167fd7_test_out_of_memory+0x2be/0x313
>> >> [ 112.698229] bpf__bpf_oom_ops_handle_out_of_memory+0x47/0xaf
>> >> [ 112.698236] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5
>> >> [ 112.698240] bpf_handle_oom+0x11a/0x1e0
>> >> [ 112.698250] out_of_memory+0xab/0x5c0
>> >> [ 112.698258] mem_cgroup_out_of_memory+0xbc/0x110
>> >> [ 112.698274] try_charge_memcg+0x4b5/0x7e0
>> >> [ 112.698288] charge_memcg+0x2f/0xc0
>> >> [ 112.698293] __mem_cgroup_charge+0x30/0xc0
>> >> [ 112.698299] do_anonymous_page+0x40f/0xa50
>> >> [ 112.698311] __handle_mm_fault+0xbba/0x1140
>> >> [ 112.698317] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5
>> >> [ 112.698335] handle_mm_fault+0xe6/0x370
>> >> [ 112.698343] do_user_addr_fault+0x211/0x6a0
>> >> [ 112.698354] exc_page_fault+0x75/0x1d0
>> >> [ 112.698363] asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30
>> >> [ 112.698366] RIP: 0033:0x7fa97236db00
>> >>
>> >> It's possible to load multiple bpf struct programs. In the case of
>> >> oom, they will be executed one by one in the same order they been
>> >> loaded until one of them returns 1 and bpf_memory_freed is set to 1
>> >> - an indication that the memory was freed. This allows to have
>> >> multiple bpf programs to focus on different types of OOM's - e.g.
>> >> one program can only handle memcg OOM's in one memory cgroup.
>> >> But the filtering is done in bpf - so it's fully flexible.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> ---
>> >> include/linux/bpf_oom.h | 49 +++++++++++++
>> >> include/linux/oom.h | 8 ++
>> >> mm/Makefile | 3 +
>> >> mm/bpf_oom.c | 157 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> mm/oom_kill.c | 22 +++++-
>> >> 5 files changed, 237 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >> create mode 100644 include/linux/bpf_oom.h
>> >> create mode 100644 mm/bpf_oom.c
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_oom.h b/include/linux/bpf_oom.h
>> >> new file mode 100644
>> >> index 000000000000..29cb5ea41d97
>> >> --- /dev/null
>> >> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_oom.h
>> >> @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
>> >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ */
>> >> +
>> >> +#ifndef __BPF_OOM_H
>> >> +#define __BPF_OOM_H
>> >> +
>> >> +struct bpf_oom;
>> >> +struct oom_control;
>> >> +
>> >> +#define BPF_OOM_NAME_MAX_LEN 64
>> >> +
>> >> +struct bpf_oom_ops {
>> >> + /**
>> >> + * @handle_out_of_memory: Out of memory bpf handler, called before
>> >> + * the in-kernel OOM killer.
>> >> + * @oc: OOM control structure
>> >> + *
>> >> + * Should return 1 if some memory was freed up, otherwise
>> >> + * the in-kernel OOM killer is invoked.
>> >> + */
>> >> + int (*handle_out_of_memory)(struct oom_control *oc);
>> >> +
>> >> + /**
>> >> + * @name: BPF OOM policy name
>> >> + */
>> >> + char name[BPF_OOM_NAME_MAX_LEN];
>> >
>> > Why should the name be a part of ops structure? IMO it's not an
>> > attribute of the operations but rather of the oom handler which is
>> > represented by bpf_oom here.
>>
>> The ops structure describes a user-defined oom policy. Currently
>> it's just one handler and the policy name. Later additional handlers
>> can be added, e.g. a handler to control the dmesg output.
>>
>> bpf_oom is an implementation detail: it's basically an extension
>> to struct bpf_oom_ops which contains "private" fields required
>> for the internal machinery.
>
> Ok. I hope we can come up with some more descriptive naming but I
> can't think of something good ATM.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> +
>> >> + /* Private */
>> >> + struct bpf_oom *bpf_oom;
>> >> +};
>> >> +
>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
>> >> +/**
>> >> + * @bpf_handle_oom: handle out of memory using bpf programs
>> >> + * @oc: OOM control structure
>> >> + *
>> >> + * Returns true if a bpf oom program was executed, returned 1
>> >> + * and some memory was actually freed.
>> >
>> > The above comment is unclear, please clarify.
>>
>> Fixed, thanks.
>>
>> /**
>> * @bpf_handle_oom: handle out of memory condition using bpf
>> * @oc: OOM control structure
>> *
>> * Returns true if some memory was freed.
>> */
>> bool bpf_handle_oom(struct oom_control *oc);
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> + */
>> >> +bool bpf_handle_oom(struct oom_control *oc);
>> >> +
>> >> +#else /* CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL */
>> >> +static inline bool bpf_handle_oom(struct oom_control *oc)
>> >> +{
>> >> + return false;
>> >> +}
>> >> +
>> >> +#endif /* CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL */
>> >> +
>> >> +#endif /* __BPF_OOM_H */
>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/oom.h b/include/linux/oom.h
>> >> index 1e0fc6931ce9..ef453309b7ea 100644
>> >> --- a/include/linux/oom.h
>> >> +++ b/include/linux/oom.h
>> >> @@ -51,6 +51,14 @@ struct oom_control {
>> >>
>> >> /* Used to print the constraint info. */
>> >> enum oom_constraint constraint;
>> >> +
>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
>> >> + /* Used by the bpf oom implementation to mark the forward progress */
>> >> + bool bpf_memory_freed;
>> >> +
>> >> + /* Policy name */
>> >> + const char *bpf_policy_name;
>> >> +#endif
>> >> };
>> >>
>> >> extern struct mutex oom_lock;
>> >> diff --git a/mm/Makefile b/mm/Makefile
>> >> index 1a7a11d4933d..a714aba03759 100644
>> >> --- a/mm/Makefile
>> >> +++ b/mm/Makefile
>> >> @@ -105,6 +105,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MEMCG) += memcontrol.o vmpressure.o
>> >> ifdef CONFIG_SWAP
>> >> obj-$(CONFIG_MEMCG) += swap_cgroup.o
>> >> endif
>> >> +ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
>> >> +obj-y += bpf_oom.o
>> >> +endif
>> >> obj-$(CONFIG_CGROUP_HUGETLB) += hugetlb_cgroup.o
>> >> obj-$(CONFIG_GUP_TEST) += gup_test.o
>> >> obj-$(CONFIG_DMAPOOL_TEST) += dmapool_test.o
>> >> diff --git a/mm/bpf_oom.c b/mm/bpf_oom.c
>> >> new file mode 100644
>> >> index 000000000000..47633046819c
>> >> --- /dev/null
>> >> +++ b/mm/bpf_oom.c
>> >> @@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
>> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
>> >> +/*
>> >> + * BPF-driven OOM killer customization
>> >> + *
>> >> + * Author: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> + */
>> >> +
>> >> +#include <linux/bpf.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/oom.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/bpf_oom.h>
>> >> +#include <linux/srcu.h>
>> >> +
>> >> +DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU(bpf_oom_srcu);
>> >> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpf_oom_lock);
>> >> +static LIST_HEAD(bpf_oom_handlers);
>> >> +
>> >> +struct bpf_oom {
>> >
>> > Perhaps bpf_oom_handler ? Then bpf_oom_ops->bpf_oom could be called
>> > bpf_oom_ops->handler.
>>
>> I don't think it's a handler, it's more like a private part
>> of bpf_oom_ops. Maybe bpf_oom_impl? Idk
>
> Yeah, we need to come up with some nomenclature and name these structs
> accordingly. In my mind ops means a structure that contains only
> operations, so current naming does not sit well but maybe that's just
> me...
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> + struct bpf_oom_ops *ops;
>> >> + struct list_head node;
>> >> + struct srcu_struct srcu;
>> >> +};
>> >> +
>> >> +bool bpf_handle_oom(struct oom_control *oc)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct bpf_oom_ops *ops;
>> >> + struct bpf_oom *bpf_oom;
>> >> + int list_idx, idx, ret = 0;
>> >> +
>> >> + oc->bpf_memory_freed = false;
>> >> +
>> >> + list_idx = srcu_read_lock(&bpf_oom_srcu);
>> >> + list_for_each_entry_srcu(bpf_oom, &bpf_oom_handlers, node, false) {
>> >> + ops = READ_ONCE(bpf_oom->ops);
>> >> + if (!ops || !ops->handle_out_of_memory)
>> >> + continue;
>> >> + idx = srcu_read_lock(&bpf_oom->srcu);
>> >> + oc->bpf_policy_name = ops->name[0] ? &ops->name[0] :
>> >> + "bpf_defined_policy";
>> >> + ret = ops->handle_out_of_memory(oc);
>> >> + oc->bpf_policy_name = NULL;
>> >> + srcu_read_unlock(&bpf_oom->srcu, idx);
>> >> +
>> >> + if (ret && oc->bpf_memory_freed)
>> >
>> > IIUC ret and oc->bpf_memory_freed seem to reflect the same state:
>> > handler successfully freed some memory. Could you please clarify when
>> > they differ?
>>
>> The idea here is to provide an additional safety measure:
>> if the bpf program simple returns 1 without doing anything,
>> the system won't deadlock.
>>
>> oc->bpf_memory_freed is set by the bpf_oom_kill_process() helper
>> (and potentially some other helpers in the future, e.g.
>> bpf_oom_rm_tmpfs_file()) and can't be modified by the bpf
>> program directly.
>
> I see. Then maybe we use only oc->bpf_memory_freed and
> handle_out_of_memory() does not return anything?
Idk, I think it's neat to have an ability to pass to the in-kernel
OOM killer even after killing a task.
Also, I believe, bpf programs have to return an int anyway,
so we can ignore it, but I don't necessary see the point.
