| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:08:32 +0300
From: "avagin@...il.com" <avagin@...il.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
CC: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: check zone->all_unreclaimable in all_unreclaimable()
On 03/11/2011 03:18 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:58 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:58:29 +0900
>> Minchan Kim<minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kame,
>>>
>>> Sorry for late response.
>>> I had a time to test this issue shortly because these day I am very busy.
>>> This issue was interesting to me.
>>> So I hope taking a time for enough testing when I have a time.
>>> I should find out root cause of livelock.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks. I and Kosaki-san reproduced the bug with swapless system.
>> Now, Kosaki-san is digging and found some issue with scheduler boost at OOM
>> and lack of enough "wait" in vmscan.c.
>>
>> I myself made patch like attached one. This works well for returning TRUE at
>> all_unreclaimable() but livelock(deadlock?) still happens.
>
> I saw the deadlock.
> It seems to happen by following code by my quick debug but not sure. I
> need to investigate further but don't have a time now. :(
>
>
> * Note: this may have a chance of deadlock if it gets
> * blocked waiting for another task which itself is waiting
> * for memory. Is there a better alternative?
> */
> if (test_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE))
> return ERR_PTR(-1UL);
> It would be wait to die the task forever without another victim selection.
> If it's right, It's a known BUG and we have no choice until now. Hmm.
I fixed this bug too and sent patch "mm: skip zombie in OOM-killer".
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/b9c6ddf34d1671ab/2941e1877ca4f626?lnk=raot&pli=1
- if (test_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE))
+ if (test_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE) && p->mm)
return ERR_PTR(-1UL);
It is not committed yet, because Devid Rientjes and company think what
to do with "[patch] oom: prevent unnecessary oom kills or kernel panics.".
>
>> I wonder vmscan itself isn't a key for fixing issue.
>
> I agree.
>
>> Then, I'd like to wait for Kosaki-san's answer ;)
>
> Me, too. :)
>
>>
>> I'm now wondering how to catch fork-bomb and stop it (without using cgroup).
>
> Yes. Fork throttling without cgroup is very important.
> And as off-topic, mem_notify without memcontrol you mentioned is
> important to embedded people, I gues.
>
>> I think the problem is that fork-bomb is faster than killall...
>
> And deadlock problem I mentioned.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Kame
>
> Thanks for the investigation, Kame.
>
>> ==
>>
>> This is just a debug patch.
>>
>> ---
>> mm/vmscan.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: mmotm-0303/mm/vmscan.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- mmotm-0303.orig/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ mmotm-0303/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -1983,9 +1983,55 @@ static void shrink_zones(int priority, s
>> }
>> }
>>
>> -static bool zone_reclaimable(struct zone *zone)
>> +static bool zone_seems_empty(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc)
>> {
>> - return zone->pages_scanned< zone_reclaimable_pages(zone) * 6;
>> + unsigned long nr, wmark, free, isolated, lru;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If scanned, zone->pages_scanned is incremented and this can
>> + * trigger OOM.
>> + */
>> + if (sc->nr_scanned)
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + free = zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
>> + isolated = zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_FILE);
>> + if (nr_swap_pages)
>> + isolated += zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_ANON);
>> +
>> + /* In we cannot do scan, don't count LRU pages. */
>> + if (!zone->all_unreclaimable) {
>> + lru = zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE_FILE);
>> + lru += zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE);
>> + if (nr_swap_pages) {
>> + lru += zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE_ANON);
>> + lru += zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_ANON);
>> + }
>> + } else
>> + lru = 0;
>> + nr = free + isolated + lru;
>> + wmark = min_wmark_pages(zone);
>> + wmark += zone->lowmem_reserve[gfp_zone(sc->gfp_mask)];
>> + wmark += 1<< sc->order;
>> + printk("thread %d/%ld all %d scanned %ld pages %ld/%ld/%ld/%ld/%ld/%ld\n",
>> + current->pid, sc->nr_scanned, zone->all_unreclaimable,
>> + zone->pages_scanned,
>> + nr,free,isolated,lru,
>> + zone_reclaimable_pages(zone), wmark);
>> + /*
>> + * In some case (especially noswap), almost all page cache are paged out
>> + * and we'll see the amount of reclaimable+free pages is smaller than
>> + * zone->min. In this case, we canoot expect any recovery other
>> + * than OOM-KILL. We can't reclaim memory enough for usual tasks.
>> + */
>> +
>> + return nr<= wmark;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static bool zone_reclaimable(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc)
>> +{
>> + /* zone_reclaimable_pages() can return 0, we need<= */
>> + return zone->pages_scanned<= zone_reclaimable_pages(zone) * 6;
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -2006,11 +2052,15 @@ static bool all_unreclaimable(struct zon
>> continue;
>> if (!cpuset_zone_allowed_hardwall(zone, GFP_KERNEL))
>> continue;
>> - if (zone_reclaimable(zone)) {
>> + if (zone_seems_empty(zone, sc))
>> + continue;
>> + if (zone_reclaimable(zone, sc)) {
>> all_unreclaimable = false;
>> break;
>> }
>> }
>> + if (all_unreclaimable)
>> + printk("all_unreclaimable() returns TRUE\n");
>>
>> return all_unreclaimable;
>> }
>> @@ -2456,7 +2506,7 @@ loop_again:
>> if (zone->all_unreclaimable)
>> continue;
>> if (!compaction&& nr_slab == 0&&
>> - !zone_reclaimable(zone))
>> + !zone_reclaimable(zone,&sc))
>> zone->all_unreclaimable = 1;
>> /*
>> * If we've done a decent amount of scanning and
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists