[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081210081114.GB25467@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:41:14 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Cc: menage@...gle.com,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Daisuke Miyakawa <dmiyakawa@...gle.com>,
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][RFT] memcg fix cgroup_mutex deadlock when cpuset
reclaims memory
* Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> [2008-12-10 16:41:26]:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:19:48 +0900, Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:49:47 +0530, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Here is a proposed fix for the memory controller cgroup_mutex deadlock
> > > reported. It is lightly tested and reviewed. I need help with review
> > > and test. Is the reported deadlock reproducible after this patch? A
> > > careful review of the cpuset impact will also be highly appreciated.
> > >
> > > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > >
> > > cpuset_migrate_mm() holds cgroup_mutex throughout the duration of
> > > do_migrate_pages(). The issue with that is that
> > >
> > > 1. It can lead to deadlock with memcg, as do_migrate_pages()
> > > enters reclaim
> > > 2. It can lead to long latencies, preventing users from creating/
> > > destroying other cgroups anywhere else
> > >
> > > The patch holds callback_mutex through the duration of cpuset_migrate_mm() and
> > > gives up cgroup_mutex while doing so.
> > >
> > I agree changing cpuset_migrate_mm not to hold cgroup_mutex to fix the dead lock
> > is one choice, and it looks good to me at the first impression.
> >
> > But I'm not sure it's good to change cpuset(other subsystem) code because of memcg.
> >
> > Anyway, I'll test this patch and report the result tomorrow.
> > (Sorry, I don't have enough time today.)
> >
> Unfortunately, this patch doesn't seem enough.
>
> This patch can fix dead lock caused by "circular lock of cgroup_mutex",
> but cannot that of caused by "race between page reclaim and cpuset_attach(mpol_rebind_mm)".
>
> (The dead lock I fixed in memcg-avoid-dead-lock-caused-by-race-between-oom-and-cpuset_attach.patch
> was caused by "race between memcg's oom and mpol_rebind_mm, and was independent of hierarchy.)
>
Yes, I agree, my point was to fix the deadlock caused in the hierarchy
due to cpuset_migrate_mm(). If I understand correctly
1. This patch introduces no new bug, but the old bug remains. The
deadlock is fixed
2. We need this patch + your fix to completely solve the problem?
Could you also share how to reproduce the issue, I'll test on my end
as well.
Thanks for your help!
--
Balbir
--
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