| 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, 16 Jan 2015 10:40:01 +0530
From: Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, vdavydov@...allels.com, mhocko@...e.cz,
mgorman@...e.de, minchan@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: vmscan: fix the page state calculation in too_many_isolated
On 01/16/2015 06:47 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:06:59 +0530 Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
>> It is observed that sometimes multiple tasks get blocked for long
>> in the congestion_wait loop below, in shrink_inactive_list. This
>> is because of vm_stat values not being synced.
>>
>> (__schedule) from [<c0a03328>]
>> (schedule_timeout) from [<c0a04940>]
>> (io_schedule_timeout) from [<c01d585c>]
>> (congestion_wait) from [<c01cc9d8>]
>> (shrink_inactive_list) from [<c01cd034>]
>> (shrink_zone) from [<c01cdd08>]
>> (try_to_free_pages) from [<c01c442c>]
>> (__alloc_pages_nodemask) from [<c01f1884>]
>> (new_slab) from [<c09fcf60>]
>> (__slab_alloc) from [<c01f1a6c>]
>>
>> In one such instance, zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_FILE)
>> had returned 14, zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)
>> returned 92, and GFP_IOFS was set, and this resulted
>> in too_many_isolated returning true. But one of the CPU's
>> pageset vm_stat_diff had NR_ISOLATED_FILE as "-14". So the
>> actual isolated count was zero. As there weren't any more
>> updates to NR_ISOLATED_FILE and vmstat_update deffered work
>> had not been scheduled yet, 7 tasks were spinning in the
>> congestion wait loop for around 4 seconds, in the direct
>> reclaim path.
>>
>> This patch uses zone_page_state_snapshot instead, but restricts
>> its usage to avoid performance penalty.
>
> Seems reasonable.
>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> @@ -1516,15 +1531,18 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
>> unsigned long nr_immediate = 0;
>> isolate_mode_t isolate_mode = 0;
>> int file = is_file_lru(lru);
>> + int safe = 0;
>> struct zone *zone = lruvec_zone(lruvec);
>> struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = &lruvec->reclaim_stat;
>>
>> - while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc))) {
>> + while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc, safe))) {
>> congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
>>
>> /* We are about to die and free our memory. Return now. */
>> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
>> return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
>> +
>> + safe = 1;
>> }
>
> But here and under the circumstances you describe, we'll call
> congestion_wait() a single time. That shouldn't have occurred.
>
> So how about we put the fallback logic into too_many_isolated() itself?
>
>
congestion_wait was allowed to run once as an optimization, considering
that __too_many_isolated (unsafe and faster) can be correct in returning
true most of the time. So we avoid calling the safe version, in most of
the cases. But I agree that we should not call congestion_wait
unnecessarily even in those rare cases. So this looks correct to me.
>
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Subject: mm-vmscan-fix-the-page-state-calculation-in-too_many_isolated-fix
>
> Move the zone_page_state_snapshot() fallback logic into
> too_many_isolated(), so shrink_inactive_list() doesn't incorrectly call
> congestion_wait().
>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> Cc: Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>
> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> ---
>
> mm/vmscan.c | 23 +++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff -puN mm/vmscan.c~mm-vmscan-fix-the-page-state-calculation-in-too_many_isolated-fix mm/vmscan.c
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c~mm-vmscan-fix-the-page-state-calculation-in-too_many_isolated-fix
> +++ a/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1402,7 +1402,7 @@ int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
> }
>
> static int __too_many_isolated(struct zone *zone, int file,
> - struct scan_control *sc, int safe)
> + struct scan_control *sc, int safe)
> {
> unsigned long inactive, isolated;
>
> @@ -1435,7 +1435,7 @@ static int __too_many_isolated(struct zo
> * unnecessary swapping, thrashing and OOM.
> */
> static int too_many_isolated(struct zone *zone, int file,
> - struct scan_control *sc, int safe)
> + struct scan_control *sc)
> {
> if (current_is_kswapd())
> return 0;
> @@ -1443,12 +1443,14 @@ static int too_many_isolated(struct zone
> if (!global_reclaim(sc))
> return 0;
>
> - if (unlikely(__too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc, 0))) {
> - if (safe)
> - return __too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc, safe);
> - else
> - return 1;
> - }
> + /*
> + * __too_many_isolated(safe=0) is fast but inaccurate, because it
> + * doesn't account for the vm_stat_diff[] counters. So if it looks
> + * like too_many_isolated() is about to return true, fall back to the
> + * slower, more accurate zone_page_state_snapshot().
> + */
> + if (unlikely(__too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc, 0)))
> + return __too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc, safe);
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -1540,18 +1542,15 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to
> unsigned long nr_immediate = 0;
> isolate_mode_t isolate_mode = 0;
> int file = is_file_lru(lru);
> - int safe = 0;
> struct zone *zone = lruvec_zone(lruvec);
> struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = &lruvec->reclaim_stat;
>
> - while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc, safe))) {
> + while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc))) {
> congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
>
> /* We are about to die and free our memory. Return now. */
> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
> -
> - safe = 1;
> }
>
> lru_add_drain();
> _
>
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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