linux-kernel - Re: Deadlock possibly caused by too_many

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:18:32 +0800
From:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Deadlock possibly caused by too_many_isolated.

On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 11:13 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:06:40AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:54:54AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:37:35AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:23:34AM +0800, Neil Brown wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:30:18 -0400
> > > > > Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On 09/14/2010 07:11 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Index: linux-2.6.32-SLE11-SP1/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > > > > ===================================================================
> > > > > > > --- linux-2.6.32-SLE11-SP1.orig/mm/vmscan.c	2010-09-15 08:37:32.000000000 +1000
> > > > > > > +++ linux-2.6.32-SLE11-SP1/mm/vmscan.c	2010-09-15 08:38:57.000000000 +1000
> > > > > > > @@ -1106,6 +1106,11 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis
> > > > > > >   		/* We are about to die and free our memory. Return now. */
> > > > > > >   		if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> > > > > > >   			return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
> > > > > > > +		if (!(sc->gfp_mask&  __GFP_IO))
> > > > > > > +			/* Not allowed to do IO, so mustn't wait
> > > > > > > +			 * on processes that might try to
> > > > > > > +			 */
> > > > > > > +			return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
> > > > > > >   	}
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   	/*
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Close.  We must also be sure that processes without __GFP_FS
> > > > > > set in their gfp_mask do not wait on processes that do have
> > > > > > __GFP_FS set.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Considering how many times we've run into a bug like this,
> > > > > > I'm kicking myself for not having thought of it :(
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > So maybe this?  I've added the test for __GFP_FS, and moved the test before
> > > > > the congestion_wait on the basis that we really want to get back up the stack
> > > > > and try the mempool ASAP.
> > > > 
> > > > The patch may well fail the !__GFP_IO page allocation and then
> > > > quickly exhaust the mempool.
> > > > 
> > > > Another approach may to let too_many_isolated() use much higher
> > > > thresholds for !__GFP_IO/FS and lower ones for __GFP_IO/FS. ie. to
> > > > allow at least nr2 NOIO/FS tasks to be blocked independent of the
> > > > IO/FS ones.  Since NOIO vmscans typically completes fast, it will then
> > > > very hard to accumulate enough NOIO processes to be actually blocked.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >                   IO/FS tasks                NOIO/FS tasks           full
> > > >                   block here                 block here              LRU size
> > > > |-----------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|
> > > > |      nr1        |           nr2            |
> > > 
> > > How about this fix? We may need very high threshold for NOIO/NOFS to
> > > prevent possible regressions.
> > 
> > Plus __GFP_WAIT..
> 
> Ah sorry! __GFP_WAIT cannot afford to wait by definition..
> 
> ---
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 225a759..becc63a 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1135,10 +1135,14 @@ static int too_many_isolated(struct zone *zone, int file,
>  		struct scan_control *sc)
>  {
>  	unsigned long inactive, isolated;
> +	int ratio;
>  
>  	if (current_is_kswapd())
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	if (!(sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT))
> +		return 0;
> +
it appears __GFP_WAIT allocation doesn't go to direct reclaim.

--
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/