linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.7 050/184] mm, oom: prevent premature OOM killer invocation for high order request

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: <20160922174050.854477476@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:39:44 +0200
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.com>,
        Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>,
        Ralf-Peter Rohbeck <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@...ntum.com>,
        Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
        Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@...il.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.7 050/184] mm, oom: prevent premature OOM killer invocation for high order request

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

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

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

commit 6b4e3181d7bd5ca5ab6f45929e4a5ffa7ab4ab7f upstream.

There have been several reports about pre-mature OOM killer invocation
in 4.7 kernel when order-2 allocation request (for the kernel stack)
invoked OOM killer even during basic workloads (light IO or even kernel
compile on some filesystems).  In all reported cases the memory is
fragmented and there are no order-2+ pages available.  There is usually
a large amount of slab memory (usually dentries/inodes) and further
debugging has shown that there are way too many unmovable blocks which
are skipped during the compaction.  Multiple reporters have confirmed
that the current linux-next which includes [1] and [2] helped and OOMs
are not reproducible anymore.

A simpler fix for the late rc and stable is to simply ignore the
compaction feedback and retry as long as there is a reclaim progress and
we are not getting OOM for order-0 pages.  We already do that for
CONFING_COMPACTION=n so let's reuse the same code when compaction is
enabled as well.

[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160810091226.6709-1-vbabka@suse.cz
[2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f7a9ea9d-bb88-bfd6-e340-3a933559305a@suse.cz

Fixes: 0a0337e0d1d1 ("mm, oom: rework oom detection")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160823074339.GB23577@dhcp22.suse.cz
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Tested-by: Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>
Tested-by: Ralf-Peter Rohbeck <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@...ntum.com>
Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>
Cc: Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@...il.com>
Cc: Ralf-Peter Rohbeck <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@...ntum.com>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
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 |   50 ++------------------------------------------------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)

--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3254,53 +3254,6 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_compact(gfp_t gfp_m
 	return NULL;
 }
 
-static inline bool
-should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
-		     enum compact_result compact_result, enum migrate_mode *migrate_mode,
-		     int compaction_retries)
-{
-	int max_retries = MAX_COMPACT_RETRIES;
-
-	if (!order)
-		return false;
-
-	/*
-	 * compaction considers all the zone as desperately out of memory
-	 * so it doesn't really make much sense to retry except when the
-	 * failure could be caused by weak migration mode.
-	 */
-	if (compaction_failed(compact_result)) {
-		if (*migrate_mode == MIGRATE_ASYNC) {
-			*migrate_mode = MIGRATE_SYNC_LIGHT;
-			return true;
-		}
-		return false;
-	}
-
-	/*
-	 * make sure the compaction wasn't deferred or didn't bail out early
-	 * due to locks contention before we declare that we should give up.
-	 * But do not retry if the given zonelist is not suitable for
-	 * compaction.
-	 */
-	if (compaction_withdrawn(compact_result))
-		return compaction_zonelist_suitable(ac, order, alloc_flags);
-
-	/*
-	 * !costly requests are much more important than __GFP_REPEAT
-	 * costly ones because they are de facto nofail and invoke OOM
-	 * killer to move on while costly can fail and users are ready
-	 * to cope with that. 1/4 retries is rather arbitrary but we
-	 * would need much more detailed feedback from compaction to
-	 * make a better decision.
-	 */
-	if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
-		max_retries /= 4;
-	if (compaction_retries <= max_retries)
-		return true;
-
-	return false;
-}
 #else
 static inline struct page *
 __alloc_pages_direct_compact(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
@@ -3311,6 +3264,8 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_compact(gfp_t gfp_m
 	return NULL;
 }
 
+#endif /* CONFIG_COMPACTION */
+
 static inline bool
 should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_flags,
 		     enum compact_result compact_result,
@@ -3337,7 +3292,6 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_contex
 	}
 	return false;
 }
-#endif /* CONFIG_COMPACTION */
 
 /* Perform direct synchronous page reclaim */
 static int