linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.14 16/37] mm: exclude memoryless nodes from zone

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:	Tue,  7 Oct 2014 16:19:33 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 3.14 16/37] mm: exclude memoryless nodes from zone_reclaim

3.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>

commit 70ef57e6c22c3323dce179b7d0d433c479266612 upstream.

We had a report about strange OOM killer strikes on a PPC machine
although there was a lot of swap free and a tons of anonymous memory
which could be swapped out.  In the end it turned out that the OOM was a
side effect of zone reclaim which wasn't unmapping and swapping out and
so the system was pushed to the OOM.  Although this sounds like a bug
somewhere in the kswapd vs.  zone reclaim vs.  direct reclaim
interaction numactl on the said hardware suggests that the zone reclaim
should not have been set in the first place:

  node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  node 0 size: 0 MB
  node 0 free: 0 MB
  node 2 cpus:
  node 2 size: 7168 MB
  node 2 free: 6019 MB
  node distances:
  node   0   2
  0:  10  40
  2:  40  10

So all the CPUs are associated with Node0 which doesn't have any memory
while Node2 contains all the available memory.  Node distances cause an
automatic zone_reclaim_mode enabling.

Zone reclaim is intended to keep the allocations local but this doesn't
make any sense on the memoryless nodes.  So let's exclude such nodes for
init_zone_allows_reclaim which evaluates zone reclaim behavior and
suitable reclaim_nodes.

Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Acked-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 mm/page_alloc.c |    5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -1869,7 +1869,7 @@ static void __paginginit init_zone_allow
 {
 	int i;

-	for_each_online_node(i)
+	for_each_node_state(i, N_MEMORY)
 		if (node_distance(nid, i) <= RECLAIM_DISTANCE)
 			node_set(i, NODE_DATA(nid)->reclaim_nodes);
 		else
@@ -4933,7 +4933,8 @@ void __paginginit free_area_init_node(in

 	pgdat->node_id = nid;
 	pgdat->node_start_pfn = node_start_pfn;
-	init_zone_allows_reclaim(nid);
+	if (node_state(nid, N_MEMORY))
+		init_zone_allows_reclaim(nid);
 #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP
 	get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn);
 #endif

--
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/