linux-ext4 - Re: Lockup in wait_transaction_locked under memory pressure

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20150629114411.GB4612@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:44:11 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Nikolay Borisov <kernel@...p.com>
Cc:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Marian Marinov <mm@...com>
Subject: Re: Lockup in wait_transaction_locked under memory pressure

On Mon 29-06-15 13:21:25, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/29/2015 12:38 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 29-06-15 12:23:16, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 06/29/2015 12:16 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> On Mon 29-06-15 12:07:54, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 06/29/2015 11:32 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu 25-06-15 18:27:10, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 06/25/2015 06:18 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu 25-06-15 17:34:22, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 06/25/2015 05:05 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu 25-06-15 16:49:43, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>> How would you advise to rectify such situation?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As I've said. Check the oom victim traces and see if it is holding any
> >>>>>>>>> of those locks.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As mentioned previously all OOM traces are identical to the one I've
> >>>>>>>> sent - OOM being called form the page fault path.
> >>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>> By identical you mean that all of them kill the same task? Or just that
> >>>>>>> the path is same (which wouldn't be surprising as this is the only path
> >>>>>>> which triggers memcg oom killer)?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The code path is the same, the tasks being killed are different
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is the OOM killer triggered only for a singe memcg or others misbehave
> >>>>> as well?
> >>>>
> >>>> Generally OOM would be triggered for whichever memcg runs out of
> >>>> resources but so far I've only observed that the D state issue happens
> >>>> in a single containers.
> >>>
> >>> It is not clear whether it is the OOM memcg which has tasks in the D
> >>> state. Anyway I think it all smells like one memcg is throttling others
> >>> on another shared resource - journal in your case.
> >>
> >> Be that as it may, how do I find which cgroup is the culprit?
> > 
> > Ted has already described that. You have to check all the running tasks
> > and try to find which of them is doing the operation which blocks
> > others. Transaction commit sounds like the first one to check.
> 
> One other, fairly crucial detail - each and every container is on a
> separate block device, meaning the journals for different block devices
> is not being shared, since the journal is per-block device.

Yes this is quite an important "detail". My understanding is that the
journal is per superblock so they shouldn't interfere on the journal
commit. i_mutex and other per-inode/file locks shouldn't matter either.

> I guess this
> means that whatever is happening is more or less constrained to the
> block device and thus the possibility that different memcg competing for
> the journal can be eliminated?

They might be still competing over IO bandwidth AFAIU...
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html