| 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: <20100223160714.72520b48.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:07:14 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Cc: "balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
rientjes@...gle.com, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] memcg: page fault oom improvement v2
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:55:43 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:26:50 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:21:16 +0900
> > Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:02:18 +0900, Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:03:15 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > > > Nishimura-san, could you review and test your extreme test case with this ?
> > > > >
> > > > Thank you for your patch.
> > > > I don't know why, but the problem seems not so easy to cause in mmotm as in 2.6.32.8,
> > > > but I'll try more anyway.
> > > >
> > > I can triggered the problem in mmotm.
> > >
> > > I'll continue my test with your patch applied.
> > >
> >
> > Thank you. Updated one here.
> >
> Unfortunately, we need one more fix to avoid build error: remove the declaration
> of mem_cgroup_oom_called() from memcontrol.h.
>
Ouch, I missed to add memcontrol.h to quilt's reflesh set..
This is updated one. Anyway, I'd like to wait for the next mmotm.
We already have several changes.
-Kame
==
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Now, because of page_fault_oom_kill, returning VM_FAULT_OOM means
random oom-killer should be called. Considering memcg, it handles
OOM-kill in its own logic, there was a problem as "oom-killer called
twice" problem.
By commit a636b327f731143ccc544b966cfd8de6cb6d72c6, I added a check
in pagefault_oom_killer shouldn't kill some (random) task if
memcg's oom-killer already killed someone.
That was done by comapring current jiffies and last oom jiffies of memcg.
I thought that easy fix was enough, but Nishimura could write a test case
where checking jiffies is not enough. This is a fix of above commit.
This new one does this.
* memcg's try_charge() never returns -ENOMEM if oom-killer is allowed.
* If someone is calling oom-killer, wait for it in try_charge().
* If TIF_MEMDIE is set as a result of try_charge(), return 0 and
allow process to make progress (and die.)
* removed hook in pagefault_out_of_memory.
By this, pagefult_out_of_memory will be never called if memcg's oom-killer
is called.
TODO:
If __GFP_WAIT is not specified in gfp_mask flag, VM_FAULT_OOM will return
anyway. We need to investigate it whether there is a case.
Changelog: 2010/02/23
* fixed MEMDIE condition check.
* making internal symbols to be static.
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>
Cc: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
---
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 6 ------
mm/memcontrol.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
mm/oom_kill.c | 11 +++--------
3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
Index: mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11/mm/memcontrol.c
===================================================================
--- mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1234,21 +1234,12 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_recla
return total;
}
-bool mem_cgroup_oom_called(struct task_struct *task)
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(memcg_oom_mutex);
+static bool mem_cgroup_oom_called(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
{
- bool ret = false;
- struct mem_cgroup *mem;
- struct mm_struct *mm;
-
- rcu_read_lock();
- mm = task->mm;
- if (!mm)
- mm = &init_mm;
- mem = mem_cgroup_from_task(rcu_dereference(mm->owner));
- if (mem && time_before(jiffies, mem->last_oom_jiffies + HZ/10))
- ret = true;
- rcu_read_unlock();
- return ret;
+ if (time_before(jiffies, mem->last_oom_jiffies + HZ/10))
+ return true;
+ return false;
}
static int record_last_oom_cb(struct mem_cgroup *mem, void *data)
@@ -1549,11 +1540,25 @@ static int __mem_cgroup_try_charge(struc
}
if (!nr_retries--) {
- if (oom) {
- mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(mem_over_limit, gfp_mask);
+ int oom_kill_called;
+ if (!oom)
+ goto nomem;
+ mutex_lock(&memcg_oom_mutex);
+ oom_kill_called = mem_cgroup_oom_called(mem_over_limit);
+ if (!oom_kill_called)
record_last_oom(mem_over_limit);
- }
- goto nomem;
+ mutex_unlock(&memcg_oom_mutex);
+ if (!oom_kill_called)
+ mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(mem_over_limit,
+ gfp_mask);
+ else /* give a chance to die for other tasks */
+ schedule_timeout(1);
+ nr_retries = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
+ /* Killed myself ? */
+ if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))
+ continue;
+ /* For smooth oom-kill of current, return 0 */
+ return 0;
}
}
if (csize > PAGE_SIZE)
Index: mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11/mm/oom_kill.c
===================================================================
--- mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11.orig/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -487,6 +487,9 @@ retry:
goto retry;
out:
read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
+ /* give a chance to die for selected process */
+ if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))
+ schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
}
#endif
@@ -601,13 +604,6 @@ void pagefault_out_of_memory(void)
/* Got some memory back in the last second. */
return;
- /*
- * If this is from memcg, oom-killer is already invoked.
- * and not worth to go system-wide-oom.
- */
- if (mem_cgroup_oom_called(current))
- goto rest_and_return;
-
if (sysctl_panic_on_oom)
panic("out of memory from page fault. panic_on_oom is selected.\n");
@@ -619,7 +615,6 @@ void pagefault_out_of_memory(void)
* Give "p" a good chance of killing itself before we
* retry to allocate memory.
*/
-rest_and_return:
if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))
schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
}
Index: mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11/include/linux/memcontrol.h
===================================================================
--- mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11.orig/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ mmotm-2.6.33-Feb11/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -124,7 +124,6 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_disabled(v
return false;
}
-extern bool mem_cgroup_oom_called(struct task_struct *task);
void mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(struct page *page, int val);
unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(struct zone *zone, int order,
gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
@@ -258,11 +257,6 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_disabled(v
return true;
}
-static inline bool mem_cgroup_oom_called(struct task_struct *task)
-{
- return false;
-}
-
static inline int
mem_cgroup_inactive_anon_is_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
{
--
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