linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH]vmscan: fix a livelock in kswapd

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: <CAEwNFnCg4+mK62oC0k+7wHib_0dFFvDYbJ3VkP91WHY+f5XcpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:09:38 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"mgorman@...e.de" <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]vmscan: fix a livelock in kswapd

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 00:51 +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 04:53:04PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 16:45 +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> wrote:
>> > > > I'm running a workload which triggers a lot of swap in a machine with 4 nodes.
>> > > > After I kill the workload, I found a kswapd livelock. Sometimes kswapd3 or
>> > > > kswapd2 are keeping running and I can't access filesystem, but most memory is
>> > > > free. This looks like a regression since commit 08951e545918c159.
>> > >
>> > > Could you tell me what is 08951e545918c159?
>> > > You mean [ebd64e21ec5a,
>> > > mm-vmscan-only-read-new_classzone_idx-from-pgdat-when-reclaiming-successfully]
>> > > ?
>> > ha, sorry, I should copy the commit title.
>> > 08951e545918c159(mm: vmscan: correct check for kswapd sleeping in
>> > sleeping_prematurely)
>> >
>>
>> I don't mean it. In my bogus git tree, I can't find it but I can look at it in repaired git tree. :)
>> Anyway, I have a comment. Please look at below.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 03:09:27PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
>> > I'm running a workload which triggers a lot of swap in a machine with 4 nodes.
>> > After I kill the workload, I found a kswapd livelock. Sometimes kswapd3 or
>> > kswapd2 are keeping running and I can't access filesystem, but most memory is
>> > free. This looks like a regression since commit 08951e545918c159.
>> > Node 2 and 3 have only ZONE_NORMAL, but balance_pgdat() will return 0 for
>> > classzone_idx. The reason is end_zone in balance_pgdat() is 0 by default, if
>> > all zones have watermark ok, end_zone will keep 0.
>> > Later sleeping_prematurely() always returns true. Because this is an order 3
>> > wakeup, and if classzone_idx is 0, both balanced_pages and present_pages
>> > in pgdat_balanced() are 0.
>>
>> Sigh. Yes.
>>
>> > We add a special case here. If a zone has no page, we think it's balanced. This
>> > fixes the livelock.
>>
>> Yes. Your patch can fix it but I don't like that it adds handling special case.
>> (Although Andrew merged quickly).
> The special case is reasonable, because if a zone has no page, it should
> be considered balanced.

Yes. It's not bad and even simple but my concern is that at the moment
kswapd code is very complicated and it's not hot path so I would like
to add more readable code.

>
>> The problem is to return 0-classzone_idx if all zones was okay.
>> So how about this?
> My original implementation is like this (I return a populated zone with
> minimum zone index). But I changed my mind later. the end_zone is zone
> we work, so return 0 is reasonable, because all zones are ok. Maybe we

If it is reasonable, did you work on ZONE_DMA(zone index: 0)?

> should return -1 if all zones are ok, but this is another story.

I think that return classzone_id(-1) and handle such case is more readable.

>
>> This can change old behavior slightly.
>> For example, if balance_pgdat calls with order-3 and all zones are okay about order-3,
>> it will recheck order-0 as end_zone isn't 0 any more.
>> But I think it's desriable side effect we have missed.
> if order-3 is ok, order-0 is ok too I think, so the check is
> unnecessary.

No. It's not for the zone but *zones.
In case of reclaiming higher order zone, it can sleep without all
zones being balanced so that precious order-0 of some zone would be
not balanced.
Even we can lost chance of clearing congestion flag of the zone.
It would be a another patch.

In conclusion, I would like to avoid complicated thing but I am going
to be not against you strongly if other doesn't agree on me.
I might need a time to clean kswapd's spagetti up.

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/