linux-kernel - Re: Silent hang up caused by pages being not scanned?

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]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFwapaED7JV6zm-NVkP-jKie+eQ1vDXWrKD=SkbshZSgmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:23:45 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Kyle Walker <kwalker@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stanislav Kozina <skozina@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Silent hang up caused by pages being not scanned?

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> I examined this hang up using additional debug printk() patch. And it was
> observed that when this silent hang up occurs, zone_reclaimable() called from
> shrink_zones() called from a __GFP_FS memory allocation request is returning
> true forever. Since the __GFP_FS memory allocation request can never call
> out_of_memory() due to did_some_progree > 0, the system will silently hang up
> with 100% CPU usage.

I wouldn't blame the zones_reclaimable() logic itself, but yeah, that looks bad.

So the do_try_to_free_pages() logic that does that

        /* Any of the zones still reclaimable?  Don't OOM. */
        if (zones_reclaimable)
                return 1;

is rather dubious. The history of that odd line is pretty dubious too:
it used to be that we would return success if "shrink_zones()"
succeeded or if "nr_reclaimed" was non-zero, but that "shrink_zones()"
logic got rewritten, and I don't think the current situation is all
that sane.

And returning 1 there is actively misleading to callers, since it
makes them think that it made progress.

So I think you should look at what happens if you just remove that
illogical and misleading return value.

HOWEVER.

I think that it's very true that we have then tuned all our *other*
heuristics for taking this thing into account, so I suspect that we'll
find that we'll need to tweak other places. But this crazy "let's say
that we made progress even when we didn't" thing looks just wrong.

In particular, I think that you'll find that you will have to change
the heuristics in __alloc_pages_slowpath() where we currently do

        if ((did_some_progress && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) || ..

when the "did_some_progress" logic changes that radically.

Because while the current return value looks insane, all the other
testing and tweaking has been done with that very odd return value in
place.

                Linus
--
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/