linux-kernel - Re: Kernel falls apart under light memory pressure (i.e. linking vmlinux)

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <BANLkTimThVw7-PN6ypBBarqXJa1xxYA_Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 21 May 2011 21:04:31 +0900
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
Cc:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	fengguang.wu@...el.com, andi@...stfloor.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...e.de, hannes@...xchg.org,
	riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Kernel falls apart under light memory pressure (i.e. linking vmlinux)

> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 3f44b81..d1dabc9 100644
> @@ -1426,8 +1437,13 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> struct zone *zone,
>
>        /* Check if we should syncronously wait for writeback */
>        if (should_reclaim_stall(nr_taken, nr_reclaimed, priority, sc)) {
> +               unsigned long nr_active, old_nr_scanned;
>                set_reclaim_mode(priority, sc, true);
> +               nr_active = clear_active_flags(&page_list, NULL);
> +               count_vm_events(PGDEACTIVATE, nr_active);
> +               old_nr_scanned = sc->nr_scanned;
>                nr_reclaimed += shrink_page_list(&page_list, zone, sc);
> +               sc->nr_scanned = old_nr_scanned;
>        }
>
>        local_irq_disable();
>
> I just tested 2.6.38.6 with the attached patch.  It survived dirty_ram
> and test_mempressure without any problems other than slowness, but
> when I hit ctrl-c to stop test_mempressure, I got the attached oom.

Minchan,

I'm confused now.
If pages got SetPageActive(), should_reclaim_stall() should never return true.
Can you please explain which bad scenario was happen?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
static void reset_reclaim_mode(struct scan_control *sc)
{
        sc->reclaim_mode = RECLAIM_MODE_SINGLE | RECLAIM_MODE_ASYNC;
}

shrink_page_list()
{
 (snip)
 activate_locked:
                SetPageActive(page);
                pgactivate++;
                unlock_page(page);
                reset_reclaim_mode(sc);                  /// here
                list_add(&page->lru, &ret_pages);
        }
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bool should_reclaim_stall()
{
 (snip)

        /* Only stall on lumpy reclaim */
        if (sc->reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_MODE_SINGLE)   /// and here
                return false;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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/