linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid livelock on !__GFP

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: <20111025112300.GB10797@suse.de>
Date:	Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:23:00 +0200
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid livelock on !__GFP_FS allocations

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 02:26:56AM -0700, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:39:49PM -0700, Colin Cross wrote:
> >> Under the following conditions, __alloc_pages_slowpath can loop
> >> forever:
> >> gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT is true
> >> gfp_mask & __GFP_FS is false
> >> reclaim and compaction make no progress
> >> order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER
> >>
> >> These conditions happen very often during suspend and resume,
> >> when pm_restrict_gfp_mask() effectively converts all GFP_KERNEL
> >> allocations into __GFP_WAIT.
> > b>
> >> The oom killer is not run because gfp_mask & __GFP_FS is false,
> >> but should_alloc_retry will always return true when order is less
> >> than PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER.
> >>
> >> Fix __alloc_pages_slowpath to skip retrying when oom killer is
> >> not allowed by the GFP flags, the same way it would skip if the
> >> oom killer was allowed but disabled.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
> >
> > Hi Colin,
> >
> > Your patch functionally seems fine. I see the problem and we certainly
> > do not want to have the OOM killer firing during suspend. I would prefer
> > that the IO devices would not be suspended until reclaim was completed
> > but I imagine that would be a lot harder.
> >
> > That said, it will be difficult to remember why checking __GFP_NOFAIL in
> > this case is necessary and someone might "optimitise" it away later. It
> > would be preferable if it was self-documenting. Maybe something like
> > this? (This is totally untested)
> 
> This issue is not limited to suspend, any GFP_NOIO allocation could
> end up in the same loop.  Suspend is the most likely case, because it
> effectively converts all GFP_KERNEL allocations into GFP_NOIO.
> 

I see what you mean with GFP_NOIO but there is an important difference
between GFP_NOIO and suspend.  A GFP_NOIO low-order allocation currently
implies __GFP_NOFAIL as commented on in should_alloc_retry(). If no progress
is made, we call wait_iff_congested() and sleep for a bit. As the system
is running, kswapd and other process activity will proceed and eventually
reclaim enough pages for the GFP_NOIO allocation to succeed. In a running
system, GFP_NOIO can stall for a period of time but your patch will cause
the allocation to fail. While I expect callers return ENOMEM or handle
the situation properly with a wait-and-retry loop, there will be
operations that fail that used to succeed. This is why I'd prefer it was
a suspend-specific fix unless we know there is a case where a machine
livelocks due to a GFP_NOIO allocation looping forever and even then I'd
wonder why kswapd was not helping.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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/