| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20090512160901.8a6c5f64.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:09:01 +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>,
"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
mingo@...e.hu,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/3] memcg: call uncharge_swapcache outside of tree_lock
(Re: [PATCH 0/3] fix stale swap cache account leak in memcg v7)
On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:06:48 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 10:44:01 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > I hope this version gets acks..
> > ==
> > As Nishimura reported, there is a race at handling swap cache.
> >
> > Typical cases are following (from Nishimura's mail)
> >
> >
> > == Type-1 ==
> > If some pages of processA has been swapped out, it calls free_swap_and_cache().
> > And if at the same time, processB is calling read_swap_cache_async() about
> > a swap entry *that is used by processA*, a race like below can happen.
> >
> > processA | processB
> > -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
> > (free_swap_and_cache()) | (read_swap_cache_async())
> > | swap_duplicate()
> > | __set_page_locked()
> > | add_to_swap_cache()
> > swap_entry_free() == 0 |
> > find_get_page() -> found |
> > try_lock_page() -> fail & return |
> > | lru_cache_add_anon()
> > | doesn't link this page to memcg's
> > | LRU, because of !PageCgroupUsed.
> >
> > This type of leak can be avoided by setting /proc/sys/vm/page-cluster to 0.
> >
> >
> > == Type-2 ==
> > Assume processA is exiting and pte points to a page(!PageSwapCache).
> > And processB is trying reclaim the page.
> >
> > processA | processB
> > -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
> > (page_remove_rmap()) | (shrink_page_list())
> > mem_cgroup_uncharge_page() |
> > ->uncharged because it's not |
> > PageSwapCache yet. |
> > So, both mem/memsw.usage |
> > are decremented. |
> > | add_to_swap() -> added to swap cache.
> >
> > If this page goes thorough without being freed for some reason, this page
> > doesn't goes back to memcg's LRU because of !PageCgroupUsed.
> >
> >
> > Considering Type-1, it's better to avoid swapin-readahead when memcg is used.
> > swapin-readahead just read swp_entries which are near to requested entry. So,
> > pages not to be used can be on memory (on global LRU). When memcg is used,
> > this is not good behavior anyway.
> >
> > Considering Type-2, the page should be freed from SwapCache right after WriteBack.
> > Free swapped out pages as soon as possible is a good nature to memcg, anyway.
> >
> > The patch set includes followng
> > [1/3] add mem_cgroup_is_activated() function. which tell us memcg is _really_ used.
> > [2/3] fix swap cache handling race by avoidng readahead.
> > [3/3] fix swap cache handling race by check swapcount again.
> >
> > Result is good under my test.
> >
> These patches seem to work well on my side too.
>
>
> BTW, we need one more fix which I found in a long term test last week.
> After this patch, it survived all through the weekend in my test.
>
> I don't know why we've never hit this bug so far.
> I think I hit it because my memcg_free_unused_swapcache() patch increases
> the possibility of calling mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache().
>
> Thanks,
> Daisuke Nishimura.
> ===
> From: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
>
> memcg: call mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache() outside of tree_lock
>
> It's rare, but I hit a spinlock lockup.
>
> BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#2, page01/24205, ffffffff806faf18
> Pid: 24205, comm: page01 Not tainted 2.6.30-rc4-5845621d #1
> Call Trace:
> <IRQ> [<ffffffff80294f93>] ? test_clear_page_writeback+0x4d/0xff
> [<ffffffff803752bc>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0xfb/0x122
> [<ffffffff804ee9ba>] ? _spin_lock_irqsave+0x59/0x70
> [<ffffffff80294f93>] ? test_clear_page_writeback+0x4d/0xff
> [<ffffffff8029649c>] ? rotate_reclaimable_page+0x87/0x8e
> [<ffffffff80294f93>] ? test_clear_page_writeback+0x4d/0xff
> [<ffffffff8028d4ed>] ? end_page_writeback+0x1c/0x3d
> [<ffffffff802ac4c6>] ? end_swap_bio_write+0x57/0x65
> [<ffffffff803516d9>] ? __end_that_request_first+0x1f3/0x2e4
> [<ffffffff803515f2>] ? __end_that_request_first+0x10c/0x2e4
> [<ffffffff803517e5>] ? end_that_request_data+0x1b/0x4c
> [<ffffffff8035225a>] ? blk_end_io+0x1c/0x76
> [<ffffffffa0060702>] ? scsi_io_completion+0x1dc/0x467 [scsi_mod]
> [<ffffffff80356394>] ? blk_done_softirq+0x66/0x76
> [<ffffffff8024002e>] ? __do_softirq+0xae/0x182
> [<ffffffff8020cb3c>] ? call_softirq+0x1c/0x2a
> [<ffffffff8020de9a>] ? do_softirq+0x31/0x83
> [<ffffffff8020d57b>] ? do_IRQ+0xa9/0xbf
> [<ffffffff8020c393>] ? ret_from_intr+0x0/0xf
> <EOI> [<ffffffff8026fd56>] ? res_counter_uncharge+0x67/0x70
> [<ffffffff802bf04a>] ? __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common+0xbd/0x158
> [<ffffffff802a0f55>] ? unmap_vmas+0x7ef/0x829
> [<ffffffff802a8a3a>] ? page_remove_rmap+0x1b/0x36
> [<ffffffff802a0c11>] ? unmap_vmas+0x4ab/0x829
> [<ffffffff802a5243>] ? exit_mmap+0xa7/0x11c
> [<ffffffff80239009>] ? mmput+0x41/0x9f
> [<ffffffff8023cf7b>] ? exit_mm+0x101/0x10c
> [<ffffffff8023e481>] ? do_exit+0x1a4/0x61e
> [<ffffffff80259391>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x11d/0x148
> [<ffffffff8023e96e>] ? do_group_exit+0x73/0xa5
> [<ffffffff8023e9b2>] ? sys_exit_group+0x12/0x16
> [<ffffffff8020b96b>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> This is caused when:
>
> CPU1: __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common(), which is holding page_cgroup lock,
> is interuppted and end_swap_bio_write(), which tries to hold
> swapper_space.tree_lock, is called in the interrupt context.
> CPU2: mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache(), which is called under swapper_space.tree_lock,
> is spinning at lock_page_cgroup() in __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common().
>
> IIUC, there is no need that mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache() should be called under
> swapper_space.tree.lock, so move it outside the tree_lock.
>
I understand the problem, but, wait a bit. NACK to this patch itself.
1. I placed _uncharge_ inside tree_lock because __remove_from_page_cache() does.
(i.e. using the same logic.)
So, plz change both logic at once.(change caller of mem_cgroup_uncharge_cache_page())
2. Shouldn't we disable IRQ while __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common() rather than moving
function ?
Thanks,
-Kame
> Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
> ---
> include/linux/swap.h | 5 +++++
> mm/memcontrol.c | 2 +-
> mm/swap_state.c | 4 +---
> mm/vmscan.c | 1 +
> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
> index caf0767..6ea541d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/swap.h
> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
> @@ -431,6 +431,11 @@ static inline swp_entry_t get_swap_page(void)
> #define has_swap_token(x) 0
> #define disable_swap_token() do { } while(0)
>
> +static inline void
> +mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache(struct page *page, swp_entry_t ent)
> +{
> +}
> +
> #endif /* CONFIG_SWAP */
> #endif /* __KERNEL__*/
> #endif /* _LINUX_SWAP_H */
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 0c9c1ad..379f200 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -1489,7 +1489,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_uncharge_cache_page(struct page *page)
> }
>
> /*
> - * called from __delete_from_swap_cache() and drop "page" account.
> + * called after __delete_from_swap_cache() and drop "page" account.
> * memcg information is recorded to swap_cgroup of "ent"
> */
> void mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache(struct page *page, swp_entry_t ent)
> diff --git a/mm/swap_state.c b/mm/swap_state.c
> index e389ef2..7624c89 100644
> --- a/mm/swap_state.c
> +++ b/mm/swap_state.c
> @@ -109,8 +109,6 @@ int add_to_swap_cache(struct page *page, swp_entry_t entry, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> */
> void __delete_from_swap_cache(struct page *page)
> {
> - swp_entry_t ent = {.val = page_private(page)};
> -
> VM_BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page));
> VM_BUG_ON(!PageSwapCache(page));
> VM_BUG_ON(PageWriteback(page));
> @@ -121,7 +119,6 @@ void __delete_from_swap_cache(struct page *page)
> total_swapcache_pages--;
> __dec_zone_page_state(page, NR_FILE_PAGES);
> INC_CACHE_INFO(del_total);
> - mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache(page, ent);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -191,6 +188,7 @@ void delete_from_swap_cache(struct page *page)
> __delete_from_swap_cache(page);
> spin_unlock_irq(&swapper_space.tree_lock);
>
> + mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache(page, entry);
> swap_free(entry);
> page_cache_release(page);
> }
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 337be66..e674cd1 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -470,6 +470,7 @@ static int __remove_mapping(struct address_space *mapping, struct page *page)
> swp_entry_t swap = { .val = page_private(page) };
> __delete_from_swap_cache(page);
> spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> + mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache(page, swap);
> swap_free(swap);
> } else {
> __remove_from_page_cache(page);
>
--
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