linux-kernel - Re: [lkp] [mm, page_alloc] 43993977ba: +88% OOM possibility

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: <20151030103830.GJ18429@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:38:30 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, lkp@...org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [lkp] [mm, page_alloc] 43993977ba: +88% OOM possibility

On Fri 30-10-15 16:21:40, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Wed 28-10-15 13:36:02, kernel test robot wrote:
> >> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
> >> 
> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
> >> commit 43993977baecd838d66ccabc7f682342fc6ff635 ("mm, page_alloc:
> >> distinguish between being unable to sleep, unwilling to sleep and
> >> avoiding waking kswapd")
> >> 
> >> We found the OOM possibility increased 88% in a virtual machine with 1G memory.
> >
> > Could you provide dmesg output from this test?
> 
> Sure, Attached.

I can only see a single allocation failure warning:
kworker/u4:1: page allocation failure: order:0, mode:0x2204000

This is obviously a non sleeping allocation with ___GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM
set. ___GFP_HIGH (aka access to memory reserves) is not required so a
failure of such an allocation is something to be expected.

[ 2294.616369] Workqueue: btrfs-submit btrfs_submit_helper
[ 2294.616369]  0000000000000000 ffff88000d38f5e0 ffffffff8173f84c 0000000000000000
[ 2294.616369]  ffff88000d38f678 ffffffff811abaee 00000000ffffffff 000000010038f618
[ 2294.616369]  ffff8800584e4148 00000000ffffffff ffff8800584e2f00 0000000000000001
[ 2294.616369] Call Trace:
[ 2294.616369]  [<ffffffff8173f84c>] dump_stack+0x4b/0x63
[ 2294.616369]  [<ffffffff811abaee>] warn_alloc_failed+0x125/0x13d
[ 2294.616369]  [<ffffffff811aecce>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x7c9/0x915
[ 2294.616369]  [<ffffffff811ecc7b>] kmem_getpages+0x91/0x155
[ 2294.616369]  [<ffffffff811eef0d>] fallback_alloc+0x1cc/0x24c
[ 2294.616369]  [<ffffffff811eed32>] ____cache_alloc_node+0x151/0x160
[ 2294.616369]  [<ffffffff811ef1ed>] __kmalloc+0xb0/0x134
[ 2294.616369]  [<ffffffff8105d7a5>] ? sched_clock+0x9/0xb
[ 2294.616369]  [<ffffffff8187d929>] ? virtqueue_add+0x78/0x37f
[ 2294.616369]  [<ffffffff8187d929>] virtqueue_add+0x78/0x37f
[ 2294.616369]  [<ffffffff81114f72>] ? __lock_acquire+0x751/0xf55
[ 2294.616369]  [<ffffffff8187dca6>] virtqueue_add_sgs+0x76/0x85

The patch you are referring shouldn't make any change in this path
because alloc_indirect which I expect is the allocation failing here
does:
gfp &= ~(__GFP_HIGHMEM | __GFP_HIGH)

and that came in via b92b1b89a33c ("virtio: force vring descriptors to
be allocated from lowmem").

Are there more failed allocations during the test? The subject would
suggest so.

Thanks!

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/