| 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, 23 Nov 2012 14:09:04 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Luigi Semenzato <semenzato@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: Check for fatal signals iff the process was
throttled
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:38:24PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> commit 5515061d22f0 ("mm: throttle direct reclaimers if PF_MEMALLOC reserves
> are low and swap is backed by network storage") introduced a check for
> fatal signals after a process gets throttled for network storage. The
> intention was that if a process was throttled and got killed that it
> should not trigger the OOM killer. As pointed out by Minchan Kim and
> David Rientjes, this check is in the wrong place and too broad. If a
> system is in am OOM situation and a process is exiting, it can loop in
> __alloc_pages_slowpath() and calling direct reclaim in a loop. As the
> fatal signal is pending it returns 1 as if it is making forward progress
> and can effectively deadlock.
>
> This patch moves the fatal_signal_pending() check after throttling to
> throttle_direct_reclaim() where it belongs. If the process is killed
> while throttled, it will return immediately without direct reclaim
> except now it will have TIF_MEMDIE set and will use the PFMEMALLOC
> reserves.
>
> Minchan pointed out that it may be better to direct reclaim before returning
> to avoid using the reserves because there may be pages that can easily
> reclaim that would avoid using the reserves. However, we do no such targetted
> reclaim and there is no guarantee that suitable pages are available. As it
I think we could mimic the target reclaim by checking the number of
(NR_FILE_PAGES - NR_SHMEM) and sc.may_swap = false but I am not strong now.
If some problem happens by this, we could consider this.
Now, just want to remain history in case of forgetting.
> is expected that this throttling happens when swap-over-NFS is used there
> is a possibility that the process will instead swap which may allocate
> network buffers from the PFMEMALLOC reserves. Hence, in the swap-over-nfs
> case where a process can be throtted and be killed it can use the reserves
> to exit or it can potentially use reserves to swap a few pages and then
> exit. This patch takes the option of using the reserves if necessary to
> allow the process exit quickly.
>
> If this patch passes review it should be considered a -stable candidate
> for 3.6.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Thanks, Mel.
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 48550c6..cbf84e1 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2207,9 +2207,12 @@ static bool pfmemalloc_watermark_ok(pg_data_t *pgdat)
> * Throttle direct reclaimers if backing storage is backed by the network
> * and the PFMEMALLOC reserve for the preferred node is getting dangerously
> * depleted. kswapd will continue to make progress and wake the processes
> - * when the low watermark is reached
> + * when the low watermark is reached.
> + *
> + * Returns true if a fatal signal was delivered during throttling. If this
> + * happens, the page allocator should not consider triggering the OOM killer.
> */
> -static void throttle_direct_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask, struct zonelist *zonelist,
> +static bool throttle_direct_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask, struct zonelist *zonelist,
> nodemask_t *nodemask)
> {
> struct zone *zone;
> @@ -2224,13 +2227,20 @@ static void throttle_direct_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask, struct zonelist *zonelist,
> * processes to block on log_wait_commit().
> */
> if (current->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
> - return;
> + goto out;
> +
> + /*
> + * If a fatal signal is pending, this process should not throttle.
> + * It should return quickly so it can exit and free its memory
> + */
> + if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> + goto out;
>
> /* Check if the pfmemalloc reserves are ok */
> first_zones_zonelist(zonelist, high_zoneidx, NULL, &zone);
> pgdat = zone->zone_pgdat;
> if (pfmemalloc_watermark_ok(pgdat))
> - return;
> + goto out;
>
> /* Account for the throttling */
> count_vm_event(PGSCAN_DIRECT_THROTTLE);
> @@ -2246,12 +2256,20 @@ static void throttle_direct_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask, struct zonelist *zonelist,
> if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)) {
> wait_event_interruptible_timeout(pgdat->pfmemalloc_wait,
> pfmemalloc_watermark_ok(pgdat), HZ);
> - return;
> +
> + goto check_pending;
> }
>
> /* Throttle until kswapd wakes the process */
> wait_event_killable(zone->zone_pgdat->pfmemalloc_wait,
> pfmemalloc_watermark_ok(pgdat));
> +
> +check_pending:
> + if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> + return true;
> +
> +out:
> + return false;
> }
>
> unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist, int order,
> @@ -2273,13 +2291,12 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist, int order,
> .gfp_mask = sc.gfp_mask,
> };
>
> - throttle_direct_reclaim(gfp_mask, zonelist, nodemask);
> -
> /*
> - * Do not enter reclaim if fatal signal is pending. 1 is returned so
> - * that the page allocator does not consider triggering OOM
> + * Do not enter reclaim if fatal signal was delivered while throttled.
> + * 1 is returned so that the page allocator does not OOM kill at this
> + * point.
> */
> - if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> + if (throttle_direct_reclaim(gfp_mask, zonelist, nodemask))
> return 1;
>
> trace_mm_vmscan_direct_reclaim_begin(order,
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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