linux-kernel - Re: zone_reclaimable() leads to livelock in __alloc_pages

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: <20160529212540.GA15180@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 May 2016 23:25:40 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: zone_reclaimable() leads to livelock in __alloc_pages_slowpath()

sorry for delay,

On 05/25, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Wed 25-05-16 00:43:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > But. It _seems to me_ that the kernel "leaks" some pages in LRU_INACTIVE_FILE
> > list because inactive_file_is_low() returns the wrong value. And do not even
> > ask me why I think so, unlikely I will be able to explain ;) to remind, I never
> > tried to read vmscan.c before.

No, this is not because of inactive_file_is_low(), but

> >
> > But. if I change lruvec_lru_size()
> >
> > 	-       return zone_page_state(lruvec_zone(lruvec), NR_LRU_BASE + lru);
> > 	+       return zone_page_state_snapshot(lruvec_zone(lruvec), NR_LRU_BASE + lru);
> >
> > the problem goes away too.

Yes,

> This is a bit surprising but my testing shows that the result shouldn't
> make much difference. I can see some discrepancies between lru_vec size
> and zone_reclaimable_pages but they are too small to actually matter.

Yes, the difference is small but it does matter.

I do not pretend I understand this all, but finally it seems I understand
whats going on on my system when it hangs. At least, why the change in
lruvec_lru_size() or calculate_normal_threshold() makes a difference.

This single change in get_scan_count() under for_each_evictable_lru() loop

	-	size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru);
	+	size = zone_page_state_snapshot(lruvec_zone(lruvec), NR_LRU_BASE + lru);

fixes the problem too.

Without this change shrink*() continues to scan the LRU_ACTIVE_FILE list
while it is empty. LRU_INACTIVE_FILE is not empty (just a few pages) but
we do not even try to scan it, lruvec_lru_size() returns zero.

Then later we recheck zone_reclaimable() and it notices the INACTIVE_FILE
counter because it uses the _snapshot variant, this leads to livelock.

I guess this doesn't really matter, but in my particular case these
ACTIVE/INACTIVE counters were screwed by the recent putback_inactive_pages()
logic. The pages we "leak" in INACTIVE list were recently moved from ACTIVE
to INACTIVE list, and this updated only the per-cpu ->vm_stat_diff[] counters,
so the "non snapshot" lruvec_lru_size() in get_scan_count() sees the "old"
numbers.

I even added more printk's, and yes when the system hangs I have something
like, say,

	->vm_stat[ACTIVE] 	 = NR;		// small number
	->vm_stat_diff[ACTIVE]	 = -NR;		// so it is actually zero but
						// get_scan_count() sees NR

	->vm_stat[INACTIVE]	 = 0;		// this is what get_scan_count() sees
	->vm_stat_diff[INACTIVE] = NR;		// and this is what zone_reclaimable()

Oleg.