| 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: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:10:52 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"hugh@...itas.com" <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] fix swap entries is not reclaimed in proper way
for mem+swap controller
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:38:33 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:21:21 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > maybe this patch covers almost all cases of swap-leak of memcg, Nishimura-san
> > reported. There are many callers of lock_page() but lock_page() which can
> > be racy with free_swap_and_cache() is not so much, I think.
> >
> > Nishimura-san, How about this ?
> >
> Thank you for your patch.
>
> I've run this patch last night but unfortunately I got a BUG.
>
> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at include/linux/pagemap.h:327
> in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 9230, name: page01
>
> hmm, calling lock_page() in end_swap_bio_* seems not safe.
>
Ugh. ok, calling lock_page is bad.
> And, some comments are inlined.
> > ==
> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> >
> > free_swap_and_cache(), which is called under various spin_lock,
> > is designed to be best-effort function and it does nothing if the page
> > is locked, under I/O. But it's ok because global lru will find the page finally.
> >
> > But, when it comes to memory+swap cgroup, global LRU may not work and
> > swap entry can be alive as "not used but not freed" state for very very long time
> > because memory cgroup's LRU routine scans its own LRU only.
> > (Such stale swap-cache is out of memcg's LRU)
> >
> > Nishimura repoted such kind of swap cache makes memcg unstable and
> > - we can never free mem_cgroup object (....it's big) even if no users.
> > - OOM killer can happen because amounts of charge-to-swap is leaked.
> >
> And
>
> - All the swap space(swap entries) could be exhausted by these swap cache.
>
Hmm, maybe.
> > This patch tries to fix the problem by adding PageCgroupStale() flag.
> > If a page which is under zappped is busy swap cache, recored it as Stale.
> > At the end of swap I/O, Stale flag is checked and swap and swapcache is
> > freed if necessary. Page migration case is also checked.
> >
> >
> > Reported-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
> > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> >
> > ---
> > include/linux/page_cgroup.h | 4 +++
> > include/linux/swap.h | 8 ++++++
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > mm/page_io.c | 2 +
> > mm/swapfile.c | 1
> > 5 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6.30-rc2/include/linux/page_cgroup.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.30-rc2.orig/include/linux/page_cgroup.h
> > +++ linux-2.6.30-rc2/include/linux/page_cgroup.h
> > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ enum {
> > PCG_LOCK, /* page cgroup is locked */
> > PCG_CACHE, /* charged as cache */
> > PCG_USED, /* this object is in use. */
> > + PCG_STALE, /* may be a stale swap-cache */
> > };
> >
> > #define TESTPCGFLAG(uname, lname) \
> > @@ -46,6 +47,9 @@ TESTPCGFLAG(Cache, CACHE)
> > TESTPCGFLAG(Used, USED)
> > CLEARPCGFLAG(Used, USED)
> >
> > +TESTPCGFLAG(Stale, STALE)
> > +SETPCGFLAG(Stale, STALE)
> > +
> > static inline int page_cgroup_nid(struct page_cgroup *pc)
> > {
> > return page_to_nid(pc->page);
> > Index: linux-2.6.30-rc2/include/linux/swap.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.30-rc2.orig/include/linux/swap.h
> > +++ linux-2.6.30-rc2/include/linux/swap.h
> > @@ -344,10 +344,18 @@ mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache(struct pag
> > #endif
> > #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP
> > extern void mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap(swp_entry_t ent);
> > +extern void mem_cgroup_mark_swapcache_stale(struct page *page);
> > +extern void mem_cgroup_fixup_swapcache(struct page *page);
> > #else
> > static inline void mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap(swp_entry_t ent)
> > {
> > }
> > +static void mem_cgroup_check_mark_swapcache_stale(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +static void mem_cgroup_fixup_swapcache(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > +}
> > #endif
> >
> I think they should be defined in MEM_RES_CTLR case.
> Exhausting swap entries problem is not depend on MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP.
>
Hmm, ok.
> > #else /* CONFIG_SWAP */
> > Index: linux-2.6.30-rc2/mm/memcontrol.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.30-rc2.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ linux-2.6.30-rc2/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -1534,6 +1534,47 @@ void mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap(swp_entry_
> > }
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > }
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * free_swap_and_cache() is an best-effort function and it doesn't free
> > + * swapent if the swapcache seems to be busy (ex. the page is locked.)
> > + * This behavior is designed to be as is but mem+swap cgroup has to handle it.
> > + * Otherwise, swp_entry seems to be leaked (for very long time)
> > + */
> > +void mem_cgroup_mark_swapcache_stale(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > + struct page_cgroup *pc;
> > +
> > + if (!PageSwapCache(page) || page_mapped(page))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> > + lock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * This "Stale" flag will be cleared when the page is reused
> > + * somewhere.
> > + */
> > + if (!PageCgroupUsed(pc))
> > + SetPageCgroupStale(pc);
> > + unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void mem_cgroup_fixup_swapcache(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > + struct page_cgroup *pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> > +
> > + /* Stale flag will be cleared automatically */
> > + if (unlikely(PageCgroupStale(pc))) {
> > + if (get_page_unless_zero(page)) {
> > + lock_page(page);
> > + try_to_free_swap(page);
> > + unlock_page(page);
> > + page_cache_release(page);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > #endif
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -1604,17 +1645,19 @@ void mem_cgroup_end_migration(struct mem
> > __mem_cgroup_commit_charge(mem, pc, ctype);
> >
> > /*
> > - * Both of oldpage and newpage are still under lock_page().
> > - * Then, we don't have to care about race in radix-tree.
> > - * But we have to be careful that this page is unmapped or not.
> > + * oldpage is under lock_page() at migration. Then, we don't have to
> > + * care about race in radix-tree. But we have to be careful
> > + * that this page is unmapped or not.
> > *
> > * There is a case for !page_mapped(). At the start of
> > * migration, oldpage was mapped. But now, it's zapped.
> > * But we know *target* page is not freed/reused under us.
> > * mem_cgroup_uncharge_page() does all necessary checks.
> > */
> > - if (ctype == MEM_CGROUP_CHARGE_TYPE_MAPPED)
> > + if (ctype == MEM_CGROUP_CHARGE_TYPE_MAPPED) {
> > mem_cgroup_uncharge_page(target);
> > + mem_cgroup_fixup_swapcache(target);
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > /*
> hmm, the intention of the patch I posted(*) is not free stale SwapCache.
>
> * http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=124029196025611&w=2
>
> If the oldpage was page_mapped() and !PageSwapCache, newpage would be
> uncharge by mem_cgroup_uncharge_page() if the owner process has been exited
> (because newpage is !page_mapped()).
> But if the oldpage was page_mapped and PageSwapCache, newpage cannot be
> uncharged by mem_cgroup_uncharge_page() even if the owner process has been exited.
>
> Those SwapCache is put_back'ed to memcg's LRU, so it can be reclaimed
> if memcg's LRU scaning(Anon) run, but my intention was to fix this behavior
> for consistency.
>
Hmm, but please remove lock_page() to newpage. (i.e. plz fix comment in memcontrol.c)
> > Index: linux-2.6.30-rc2/mm/page_io.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.30-rc2.orig/mm/page_io.c
> > +++ linux-2.6.30-rc2/mm/page_io.c
> > @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ static void end_swap_bio_write(struct bi
> > }
> > end_page_writeback(page);
> > bio_put(bio);
> > + mem_cgroup_fixup_swapcache(page);
> > }
> >
> > void end_swap_bio_read(struct bio *bio, int err)
> > @@ -87,6 +88,7 @@ void end_swap_bio_read(struct bio *bio,
> > }
> > unlock_page(page);
> > bio_put(bio);
> > + mem_cgroup_fixup_swapcache(page);
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > Index: linux-2.6.30-rc2/mm/swapfile.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.30-rc2.orig/mm/swapfile.c
> > +++ linux-2.6.30-rc2/mm/swapfile.c
> > @@ -587,6 +587,7 @@ int free_swap_and_cache(swp_entry_t entr
> > if (swap_entry_free(p, entry) == 1) {
> > page = find_get_page(&swapper_space, entry.val);
> > if (page && !trylock_page(page)) {
> > + mem_cgroup_mark_swapcache_stale(page);
> > page_cache_release(page);
> > page = NULL;
> > }
> >
>
> IIUC, this patch cannot handle(even if it worked as intended) cases like:
>
> processA | processB
> -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
> (free_swap_and_cache()) | (read_swap_cache_async())
> | swap_duplicate()
> swap_entry_free() == 1 |
> find_get_page() |
> -> cannot find. so |
> PCG_STALE isn't set. |
> | add_to_swap_cache()
> |
> | swap_readpage()
> | end_swap_bio_read()
> | mem_cgroup_fixup_swapcache()
> | does nothing becase !PageCgroupStale
>
> (the page is mapped but not on swapcache)
> processA | processB
> -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
> (zap_pte_range()) | (shrink_page_list())
> | (referenced flag is set in some reason)
> page_remove_rmap() |
> -> uncharged(!PageSwapCache) |
> | add_to_swap()
> | -> succeed
> |
> | (not freed because referenced flag is set)
>
> So, we should add check to shrink_page_list() anyway, IMHO.
>
Maybe I should forget this patch ;)
>
> Hmm... I tested a patch like below, but it seems to have a dead lock about swap_lock.
> (This patch has unhandled corner cases yet, even if it worked.)
>
> I'll dig and try more including another aproach..
>
> ---
> diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
> index 62d8143..991dd53 100644
> --- a/include/linux/swap.h
> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
> @@ -336,11 +336,16 @@ static inline void disable_swap_token(void)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR
> extern void mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache(struct page *page, swp_entry_t ent);
> +extern void mem_cgroup_fixup_swapcache(struct page *page);
> #else
> static inline void
> mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache(struct page *page, swp_entry_t ent)
> {
> }
> +static inline void
> +mem_cgroup_fixup_swapcache(struct page *page)
> +{
> +}
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP
> extern void mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap(swp_entry_t ent);
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index ba07cab..b2a4d52 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -1568,6 +1568,19 @@ void mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache(struct page *page, swp_entry_t ent)
> css_put(&memcg->css);
> }
>
> +void mem_cgroup_fixup_swapcache(struct page *page)
> +{
> + if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> + return;
> +
> + VM_BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page));
> +
> + if (get_page_unless_zero(page)) {
> + try_to_free_swap(page);
> + page_cache_release(page);
> + }
> +}
Because the page is locked, page_cache_release() is unnecessary.
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP
> /*
> * called from swap_entry_free(). remove record in swap_cgroup and
> diff --git a/mm/page_io.c b/mm/page_io.c
> index 3023c47..2bafcd3 100644
> --- a/mm/page_io.c
> +++ b/mm/page_io.c
> @@ -85,6 +85,7 @@ void end_swap_bio_read(struct bio *bio, int err)
> } else {
> SetPageUptodate(page);
> }
> + mem_cgroup_fixup_swapcache(page);
try_to_free_swap() at every end_swap_bio_read() ? We'll get tons of NACK.
Thanks,
-Kame
> unlock_page(page);
> bio_put(bio);
> }
>
>
--
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