| 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: <20120701011538.GD2907@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:15:38 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mm,numad,rcu: hang on OOM
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 06:44:41PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While fuzzing using trinity on a KVM tools guest with todays linux-next, I've hit the following lockup:
>
> [ 362.261729] INFO: task numad/2:27 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> [ 362.263974] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> [ 362.271684] numad/2 D 0000000000000001 5672 27 2 0x00000000
> [ 362.280052] ffff8800294c7c58 0000000000000046 ffff8800294c7c08 ffffffff81163dba
> [ 362.294477] ffff8800294c6000 ffff8800294c6010 ffff8800294c7fd8 ffff8800294c6000
> [ 362.306631] ffff8800294c6010 ffff8800294c7fd8 ffff88000d5c3000 ffff8800294c8000
> [ 362.315395] Call Trace:
> [ 362.318556] [<ffffffff81163dba>] ? __lock_release+0x1ba/0x1d0
> [ 362.325411] [<ffffffff8372ab75>] schedule+0x55/0x60
> [ 362.328844] [<ffffffff8372b965>] rwsem_down_failed_common+0xf5/0x130
> [ 362.332501] [<ffffffff8115d38e>] ? put_lock_stats+0xe/0x40
> [ 362.334496] [<ffffffff81160135>] ? __lock_contended+0x1f5/0x230
> [ 362.336723] [<ffffffff8372b9d5>] rwsem_down_read_failed+0x15/0x17
> [ 362.339297] [<ffffffff81985e34>] call_rwsem_down_read_failed+0x14/0x30
> [ 362.341768] [<ffffffff83729a29>] ? down_read+0x79/0xa0
> [ 362.343669] [<ffffffff8122d262>] ? lazy_migrate_process+0x22/0x60
> [ 362.345616] [<ffffffff8122d262>] lazy_migrate_process+0x22/0x60
> [ 362.347464] [<ffffffff811453c0>] process_mem_migrate+0x10/0x20
> [ 362.349340] [<ffffffff81145090>] move_processes+0x190/0x230
> [ 362.351398] [<ffffffff81145b7a>] numad_thread+0x7a/0x120
> [ 362.353245] [<ffffffff81145b00>] ? find_busiest_node+0x310/0x310
> [ 362.355396] [<ffffffff81119e82>] kthread+0xb2/0xc0
> [ 362.356996] [<ffffffff8372ea34>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> [ 362.359253] [<ffffffff8372ccb4>] ? retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13
> [ 362.361168] [<ffffffff81119dd0>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
> [ 362.363277] [<ffffffff8372ea30>] ? gs_change+0x13/0x13
>
> I've hit sysrq-t to see what might be the cause, and it appears that an OOM was in progress, and was stuck on RCU:
>
> [ 578.086230] trinity-child69 D ffff8800277a54c8 3968 6658 6580 0x00000000
> [ 578.086230] ffff880022c5f518 0000000000000046 ffff880022c5f4c8 ffff88001b9d6e00
> [ 578.086230] ffff880022c5e000 ffff880022c5e010 ffff880022c5ffd8 ffff880022c5e000
> [ 578.086230] ffff880022c5e010 ffff880022c5ffd8 ffff880023c08000 ffff880022c33000
> [ 578.086230] Call Trace:
> [ 578.086230] [<ffffffff8372ab75>] schedule+0x55/0x60
> [ 578.086230] [<ffffffff837285c8>] schedule_timeout+0x38/0x2c0
> [ 578.086230] [<ffffffff81161d16>] ? mark_held_locks+0xf6/0x120
> [ 578.086230] [<ffffffff81163dba>] ? __lock_release+0x1ba/0x1d0
> [ 578.086230] [<ffffffff8372c67b>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x2b/0x80
> [ 578.086230] [<ffffffff8372a06f>] wait_for_common+0xff/0x170
> [ 578.086230] [<ffffffff81132c10>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x290/0x290
> [ 578.086230] [<ffffffff8372a188>] wait_for_completion+0x18/0x20
> [ 578.086230] [<ffffffff811a5de7>] _rcu_barrier+0x4a7/0x4e0
Hmmm... Perhaps a blocking operation is not appropriate here. I have
substituted a nonblocking approach, which is at -rcu (thus soon -next)
at 1ee4c09d (Provide OOM handler to motivate lazy RCU callbacks).
Patch below.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rcu: Provide OOM handler to motivate lazy RCU callbacks
In kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ=y, CPUs can accumulate a
large number of lazy callbacks, which as the name implies will be slow
to be invoked. This can be a problem on small-memory systems, where the
default 6-second sleep for CPUs having only lazy RCU callbacks could well
be fatal. This commit therefore installs an OOM hander that ensures that
every CPU with non-lazy callbacks has at least one non-lazy callback,
in turn ensuring timely advancement for these callbacks.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.h b/kernel/rcutree.h
index 4b47fbe..dab279f 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.h
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.h
@@ -314,8 +314,11 @@ struct rcu_data {
unsigned long n_rp_need_fqs;
unsigned long n_rp_need_nothing;
- /* 6) _rcu_barrier() callback. */
+ /* 6) _rcu_barrier() and OOM callbacks. */
struct rcu_head barrier_head;
+#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ
+ struct rcu_head oom_head;
+#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ */
int cpu;
struct rcu_state *rsp;
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
index 81e53eb..1908847 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
*/
#include <linux/delay.h>
+#include <linux/oom.h>
#define RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO 1
@@ -2128,6 +2129,90 @@ static void rcu_idle_count_callbacks_posted(void)
__this_cpu_add(rcu_dynticks.nonlazy_posted, 1);
}
+/*
+ * Data for flushing lazy RCU callbacks at OOM time.
+ */
+static atomic_t oom_callback_count;
+static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(oom_callback_wq);
+
+/*
+ * RCU OOM callback -- decrement the outstanding count and deliver the
+ * wake-up if we are the last one.
+ */
+static void rcu_oom_callback(struct rcu_head *rhp)
+{
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&oom_callback_count))
+ wake_up(&oom_callback_wq);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Post an rcu_oom_notify callback on the current CPU if it has at
+ * least one lazy callback. This will unnecessarily post callbacks
+ * to CPUs that already have a non-lazy callback at the end of their
+ * callback list, but this is an infrequent operation, so accept some
+ * extra overhead to keep things simple.
+ */
+static void rcu_oom_notify_cpu(void *flavor)
+{
+ struct rcu_state *rsp = flavor;
+ struct rcu_data *rdp = __this_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda);
+
+ if (rdp->qlen_lazy != 0) {
+ atomic_inc(&oom_callback_count);
+ rsp->call(&rdp->oom_head, rcu_oom_callback);
+ }
+}
+
+/*
+ * If low on memory, ensure that each CPU has a non-lazy callback.
+ * This will wake up CPUs that have only lazy callbacks, in turn
+ * ensuring that they free up the corresponding memory in a timely manner.
+ */
+static int rcu_oom_notify(struct notifier_block *self,
+ unsigned long notused, void *nfreed)
+{
+ int cpu;
+
+ /* Wait for callbacks from earlier instance to complete. */
+ wait_event(oom_callback_wq, atomic_read(&oom_callback_count) == 0);
+
+ /*
+ * Prevent premature wakeup: ensure that all increments happen
+ * before there is a chance of the counter reaching zero.
+ */
+ atomic_set(&oom_callback_count, 1);
+
+ get_online_cpus();
+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
+ smp_call_function_single(cpu, rcu_oom_notify_cpu,
+ &rcu_preempt_state, 1);
+#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU */
+ smp_call_function_single(cpu, rcu_oom_notify_cpu,
+ &rcu_bh_state, 1);
+ smp_call_function_single(cpu, rcu_oom_notify_cpu,
+ &rcu_sched_state, 1);
+ }
+ put_online_cpus();
+
+ /* Unconditionally decrement: no need to wake ourselves up. */
+ atomic_dec(&oom_callback_count);
+
+ *(unsigned long *)nfreed = 1;
+ return NOTIFY_OK;
+}
+
+static struct notifier_block rcu_oom_nb = {
+ .notifier_call = rcu_oom_notify
+};
+
+static int __init rcu_register_oom_notifier(void)
+{
+ register_oom_notifier(&rcu_oom_nb);
+ return 0;
+}
+early_initcall(rcu_register_oom_notifier);
+
#endif /* #else #if !defined(CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ) */
#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_INFO
--
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