| 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: <20120501152437.194f0fc2.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 15:24:37 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux-Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
Eric B Munson <emunson@...bm.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/16] mm: Throttle direct reclaimers if PF_MEMALLOC
reserves are low and swap is backed by network storage
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:17:02 +0100
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> If swap is backed by network storage such as NBD, there is a risk
> that a large number of reclaimers can hang the system by consuming
> all PF_MEMALLOC reserves. To avoid these hangs, the administrator
> must tune min_free_kbytes in advance which is a bit fragile.
>
> This patch throttles direct reclaimers if half the PF_MEMALLOC reserves
> are in use. If the system is routinely getting throttled the system
> administrator can increase min_free_kbytes so degradation is smoother
> but the system will keep running.
>
>
> ...
>
> +static bool pfmemalloc_watermark_ok(pg_data_t *pgdat)
> +{
> + struct zone *zone;
> + unsigned long pfmemalloc_reserve = 0;
> + unsigned long free_pages = 0;
> + int i;
> + bool wmark_ok;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i <= ZONE_NORMAL; i++) {
> + zone = &pgdat->node_zones[i];
> + pfmemalloc_reserve += min_wmark_pages(zone);
> + free_pages += zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
> + }
> +
> + wmark_ok = (free_pages > pfmemalloc_reserve / 2) ? true : false;
wmark_ok = free_pages > pfmemalloc_reserve / 2;
> +
> + /* kswapd must be awake if processes are being throttled */
> + if (!wmark_ok && waitqueue_active(&pgdat->kswapd_wait)) {
> + pgdat->classzone_idx = min(pgdat->classzone_idx,
> + (enum zone_type)ZONE_NORMAL);
> + wake_up_interruptible(&pgdat->kswapd_wait);
> + }
> +
> + return wmark_ok;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Throttle direct reclaimers if backing storage is backed by the network
> + * and the PFMEMALLOC reserve for the preferred node is getting dangerously
> + * depleted. kswapd will continue to make progress and wake the processes
> + * when the low watermark is reached
> + */
> +static void throttle_direct_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask, struct zonelist *zonelist,
> + nodemask_t *nodemask)
> +{
> + struct zone *zone;
> + int high_zoneidx = gfp_zone(gfp_mask);
> + pg_data_t *pgdat;
> +
> + /* Kernel threads such as kjournald should not be throttled */
The comment should explain "why", not "what". Particularly when the
"what" was bleedin obvious ;)
Also... why?
> + if (current->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
> + return;
> +
> + /* Check if the pfmemalloc reserves are ok */
> + first_zones_zonelist(zonelist, high_zoneidx, NULL, &zone);
> + pgdat = zone->zone_pgdat;
> + if (pfmemalloc_watermark_ok(pgdat))
> + return;
> +
> + /*
> + * If the caller cannot enter the filesystem, it's possible that it
> + * is processing a journal transaction. In this case, it is not safe
> + * to block on pfmemalloc_wait as kswapd could also be blocked waiting
> + * to start a transaction. Instead, throttle for up to a second before
> + * the reclaim must continue.
> + */
I suppose this applies to fs locks in general, not just to
journal_start()?
> + if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)) {
> + wait_event_interruptible_timeout(pgdat->pfmemalloc_wait,
> + pfmemalloc_watermark_ok(pgdat), HZ);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* Throttle until kswapd wakes the process */
> + wait_event_killable(zone->zone_pgdat->pfmemalloc_wait,
> + pfmemalloc_watermark_ok(pgdat));
> +}
> +
> unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist, int order,
> gfp_t gfp_mask, nodemask_t *nodemask)
> {
>
> ...
>
> @@ -2610,6 +2686,20 @@ static bool sleeping_prematurely(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, long remaining,
> if (remaining)
> return true;
>
> + /*
> + * There is a potential race between when kswapd checks it watermarks
"its"
> + * and a process gets throttled. There is also a potential race if
> + * processes get throttled, kswapd wakes, a large process exits therby
> + * balancing the zones that causes kswapd to miss a wakeup. If kswapd
> + * is going to sleep, no process should be sleeping on pfmemalloc_wait
> + * so wake them now if necessary. If necessary, processes will wake
> + * kswapd and get throttled again
> + */
Yes, the possibility for missed wakeups here worried me. There's no
synchronization and it would be easy to leave holes.
It's good that there is no timeout on the throttling - a timeout would
cover up rare races most nastily.
> + if (waitqueue_active(&pgdat->pfmemalloc_wait)) {
> + wake_up(&pgdat->pfmemalloc_wait);
> + return true;
> + }
A bool-returning function called "sleeping_prematurely" should have no
side-effects. But it now performs wakeups. Wanna see if there is a
way of making this nicer?
> /* Check the watermark levels */
> for (i = 0; i <= classzone_idx; i++) {
> struct zone *zone = pgdat->node_zones + i;
> @@ -2871,6 +2961,12 @@ loop_again:
> }
>
> }
> +
> + /* Wake throttled direct reclaimers if low watermark is met */
s/"what"/"why"/ !
> + if (waitqueue_active(&pgdat->pfmemalloc_wait) &&
> + pfmemalloc_watermark_ok(pgdat))
> + wake_up(&pgdat->pfmemalloc_wait);
> +
> if (all_zones_ok || (order && pgdat_balanced(pgdat, balanced, *classzone_idx)))
> break; /* kswapd: all done */
> /*
>
> ...
>
--
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