linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/7] improve memcg oom killer robustness v2

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:	Thu, 05 Sep 2013 14:33:43 +0200
From:	"azurIt" <azurit@...ox.sk>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
	<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/7] improve memcg oom killer robustness v2

>On Thu 05-09-13 13:47:02, azurIt wrote:
>> >On Thu 05-09-13 12:17:00, azurIt wrote:
>> >> >[...]
>> >> >> My script detected another freezed cgroup today, sending stacks. Is
>> >> >> there anything interesting?
>> >> >
>> >> >3 tasks are sleeping and waiting for somebody to take an action to
>> >> >resolve memcg OOM. The memcg oom killer is enabled for that group?  If
>> >> >yes, which task has been selected to be killed? You can find that in oom
>> >> >report in dmesg.
>> >> >
>> >> >I can see a way how this might happen. If the killed task happened to
>> >> >allocate a memory while it is exiting then it would get to the oom
>> >> >condition again without freeing any memory so nobody waiting on the
>> >> >memcg_oom_waitq gets woken. We have a report like that: 
>> >> >https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/31/94
>> >> >
>> >> >The issue got silent in the meantime so it is time to wake it up.
>> >> >It would be definitely good to see what happened in your case though.
>> >> >If any of the bellow tasks was the oom victim then it is very probable
>> >> >this is the same issue.
>> >> 
>> >> Here it is:
>> >> http://watchdog.sk/lkml/kern5.log
>> >
>> >$ grep "Killed process \<103[168]\>" kern5.log
>> >$
>> >
>> >So none of the sleeping tasks has been killed previously.
>> >
>> >> Processes were killed by my script
>> >
>> >OK, I am really confused now. The log contains a lot of in-kernel memcg
>> >oom killer messages:
>> >$ grep "Memory cgroup out of memory:" kern5.log | wc -l
>> >809
>> >
>> >This suggests that the oom killer is not disabled. What exactly has you
>> >script done?
>> >
>> >> at about 11:05:35.
>> >
>> >There is an oom killer striking at 11:05:35:
>> >Sep  5 11:05:35 server02 kernel: [1751856.433101] Task in /1066/uid killed as a result of limit of /1066
>> >[...]
>> >Sep  5 11:05:35 server02 kernel: [1751856.539356] [ pid ]   uid  tgid total_vm      rss cpu oom_adj oom_score_adj name
>> >Sep  5 11:05:35 server02 kernel: [1751856.539745] [ 1046]  1066  1046   228537    95491   3       0             0 apache2
>> >Sep  5 11:05:35 server02 kernel: [1751856.539894] [ 1047]  1066  1047   228604    95488   6       0             0 apache2
>> >Sep  5 11:05:35 server02 kernel: [1751856.540043] [ 1050]  1066  1050   228470    95452   5       0             0 apache2
>> >Sep  5 11:05:35 server02 kernel: [1751856.540191] [ 1051]  1066  1051   228592    95521   6       0             0 apache2
>> >Sep  5 11:05:35 server02 kernel: [1751856.540340] [ 1052]  1066  1052   228594    95546   5       0             0 apache2
>> >Sep  5 11:05:35 server02 kernel: [1751856.540489] [ 1054]  1066  1054   228470    95453   5       0             0 apache2
>> >Sep  5 11:05:35 server02 kernel: [1751856.540646] Memory cgroup out of memory: Kill process 1046 (apache2) score 1000 or sacrifice child
>> >
>> >And this doesn't list any of the tasks sleeping and waiting for oom
>> >resolving so they must have been created after this OOM. Is this the
>> >same group?
>> 
>> cgroup was 1066. My script is doing this:
>> 1.) It checks memory usage of all cgroups and is searching for those whos memory usage is >= 99% of their limit.
>> 2.) If any are found, they are saved in an array of 'candidates for killing'.
>> 3.) It sleep for 30 seconds.
>> 4.) Do (1) and if any of found cgorups were also found in (2), it kills all processes inside it.
>> 5.) Clear array of saved cgroups and continue.
>
>This is racy and doesn't really tell you anything about any group being
>frozen.
>
>[...]
>> But, of course, i cannot guarantee that the killed cgroup was really
>> freezed (because of bug in linux kernel), there could be some false
>> positives - for example, cgroup has 99% usage of memory, my script
>> detected it, OOM successfully resolved the problem and, after 30
>> seconds, the same cgroup has again 99% usage of it's memory and my
>> script detected it again.
>
>Exactly
>
>> This is why i'm sending stacks here, i simply cannot tell if
>> there was or wasn't a problem.
>
>On the other hand if those processes would be stuck waiting for somebody
>to resolve the OOM for a long time without any change then yes we have a
>problem.
>
>Just to be sure I got you right. You have killed all the processes from
>the group you have sent stacks for, right? If that is the case I am
>really curious about processes sitting in sleep_on_page_killable because
>those are killable by definition.


Yes, my script killed all of that processes right after taking stack. Here is part of the code (python):
http://pastebin.com/WryGKxyF

Function get_tasks() is reading pids from 'tasks' file of a cgroup and returning them in list (array).


azur
--
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/