linux-kernel - Re: kswapd endless loop for compaction

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]

Date:	Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:01:26 -0500
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kswapd endless loop for compaction

Just to be clear, this is not fixed by Dave's patch to NR_FREE_PAGES
accounting.

I can still get 3.7-rc5 + Dave's fix to drop into an endless loop in
kswapd within a couple of minutes on my test box.

As described below, the bug comes from contradicting conditions in
balance_pgdat(), not an accounting problem.

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:04:41PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> while testing a 3.7-rc5ish kernel, I noticed that kswapd can drop into
> a busy spin state without doing reclaim.  printk-style debugging told
> me that this happens when the distance between a zone's high watermark
> and its low watermark is less than two huge pages (DMA zone).
> 
> 1. The first loop in balance_pgdat() over the zones finds all zones to
> be above their high watermark and only does goto out (all_zones_ok).
> 
> 2. pgdat_balanced() at the out: label also just checks the high
> watermark, so the node is considered balanced and the order is not
> reduced.
> 
> 3. In the `if (order)' block after it, compaction_suitable() checks if
> the zone's low watermark + twice the huge page size is okay, which
> it's not necessarily in a small zone, and so COMPACT_SKIPPED makes it
> it go back to loop_again:.
> 
> This will go on until somebody else allocates and breaches the high
> watermark and then hopefully goes on to reclaim the zone above low
> watermark + 2 * THP.
> 
> I'm not really sure what the correct solution is.  Should we modify
> the zone_watermark_ok() checks in balance_pgdat() to take into account
> the higher watermark requirements for reclaim on behalf of compaction?
> Change the check in compaction_suitable() / not use it directly?
> 
> Thanks,
> Johannes
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
--
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/