[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090508165636.GD4630@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 22:26:36 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"hugh@...itas.com" <hugh@...itas.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg fix stale swap cache account leak v6
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-05-08 14:09:10]:
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
>
> In general, Linux's swp_entry handling is done by combination of lazy techniques
> and global LRU. It works well but when we use mem+swap controller, some more
> strict control is appropriate. Otherwise, swp_entry used by a cgroup will be
> never freed until global LRU works. In a system where memcg is well-configured,
> global LRU doesn't work frequently.
>
> Example A) Assume a swap cache which is not mapped.
> CPU0 CPU1
> zap_pte().... shrink_page_list()
> free_swap_and_cache() lock_page()
> page seems busy.
>
> Example B) Assume swapin-readahead.
> CPU0 CPU1
> zap_pte() read_swap_cache_async()
> swap_duplicate().
> swap_entry_free() = 1
> find_get_page()=> NULL.
> add_to_swap_cache().
> issue swap I/O.
>
> There are many patterns of this kind of race (but no problems).
>
> free_swap_and_cache() is called for freeing swp_entry. But it is a best-effort
> function. If the swp_entry/page seems busy, swp_entry is not freed.
> This is not a problem because global-LRU will find SwapCache at page reclaim.
>
> If memcg is used, on the other hand, global LRU may not work. Then, above
> unused SwapCache will not be freed.
> (unmapped SwapCache occupy swp_entry but never be freed if not on memcg's LRU)
>
> So, even if there are no tasks in a cgroup, swp_entry usage still remains.
> In bad case, OOM by mem+swap controller is triggered by this "leak" of
> swp_entry as Nishimura reported.
>
> Considering this issue, swapin-readahead itself is not very good for memcg.
> It read swap cache which will not be used. (and _unused_ swapcache will
> not be accounted.) Even if we account swap cache at add_to_swap_cache(),
> we need to account page to several _unrelated_ memcg. This is bad.
>
> This patch tries to fix racy case of free_swap_and_cache() and page status.
>
> After this patch applied, following test works well.
>
> # echo 1-2M > ../memory.limit_in_bytes
> # run tasks under memcg.
> # kill all tasks and make memory.tasks empty
> # check memory.memsw.usage_in_bytes == memory.usage_in_bytes and
> there is no _used_ swp_entry.
>
> What this patch does is
> - avoid swapin-readahead when memcg is activated.
> - try to free swapcache immediately after Writeback is done.
> - Handle racy case of __remove_mapping() in vmscan.c
>
> TODO:
> - tmpfs should use real readahead rather than swapin readahead...
>
> Changelog: v5 -> v6
> - works only when memcg is activated.
> - check after I/O works only after writeback.
> - avoid swapin-readahead when memcg is activated.
> - fixed page refcnt issue.
> Changelog: v4->v5
> - completely new design.
>
> Reported-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
I know we discussed readahead changes this in the past
1. the memcg_activated() check should be memcg_swap_activated(), no?
In type 1, the problem can be solved by unaccounting the pages
in swap_entry_free
Type 2 is not a problem, since the accounting is already correct
Hence my assertion that this problem occurs only when swapaccount
is enabled.
2. I don't mind adding space overhead to swap_cgroup, if this problem
can be fought that way. The approaches so far have made my head go
round.
3. Disabling readahead is a big decision and will need loads of
review/data before we can decide to go this route.
--
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