linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix bug in try_to_free_pages and balance

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:36:02 -0700
From:	"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...gle.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix bug in try_to_free_pages and balance_pgdat when they
 fail to reclaim pages

Nick Piggin wrote:
> Martin Bligh wrote:
> 
>> The same bug is contained in both try_to_free_pages and balance_pgdat.
>> On reclaiming the requisite number of pages we correctly set
>> prev_priority back to DEF_PRIORITY.
> 
> 
> AFAIKS, we set prev_priority to the priority at which the zone was
> deemed to require no more reclaiming, not DEF_PRIORITY.

Well, it's zone->temp_priority, which was set to DEF_PRIORITY at the
top of the function, though I suppose something else might have
changed it since.

>> However, we ALSO do this even
>> if we loop over all priorities and fail to reclaim.
> 
> 
> If that happens, shouldn't prev_priority be set to 0?

Yes, but it's not. We fall off the bottom of the loop, and set it
back to temp_priority. At best, the code is unclear.

I suppose shrink_zones() might in theory knock temp_priority down
as it goes, so it might come out right. But given that it's a global
(per zone), not per-reclaimer, I fail to see how that's really safe.
Supposing someone else has just started reclaim, and is still at
prio 12?

Moreover, whilst try_to_free_pages calls shrink_zones, balance_pgdat
does not. Nothing else I can see sets temp_priority.

 > I don't agree the patch is correct.

You think it's doing something wrong? Or just unnecessary?

I'm inclined to think the whole concept of temp_priority and
prev_priority are pretty broken. This may not fix the whole thing,
but it seems to me to make it better than it was before.

> We saw problems with this before releasing SLES10 too. See
> zone_is_near_oom and other changesets from around that era. I would
> like to know what workload was prevented from going OOM with these
> changes, but zone_is_near_oom didn't help -- it must have been very
> marginal (or there may indeed be a bug somewhere).

Google production workload. Multiple reclaimers operating - one is
down to priority 0 on the reclaim, but distress is still set to 0,
thanks to prev_priority being borked. Hence we don't reclaim mapped
pages, the reclaim fails, OOM killer kicks in.

Forward ported from an earlier version of 2.6 ... but I don't see
why we need extra heuristics here, it seems like a clear and fairly
simple bug. We're in deep crap with reclaim, and we go set the
global indicator back to "oh no, everything's fine". Not a good plan.

M.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/