[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+ZEAoPWxEJ2yAf6b5cSjAm+MPx1yrk70BWHRrnDYdyb_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 12:39:09 +0200
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+bab151e82a4e973fa325@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: WARNING in try_charge
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon 06-08-18 11:30:37, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> [...]
>> > More interesting stuff is higher in the kernel log
>> > : [ 366.435015] oom-kill:constraint=CONSTRAINT_MEMCG,nodemask=(null),cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0,oom_memcg=/ile0,task_memcg=/ile0,task=syz-executor3,pid=23766,uid=0
>> > : [ 366.449416] memory: usage 112kB, limit 0kB, failcnt 1605
>> >
>> > Are you sure you want to have hard limit set to 0?
>>
>> syzkaller really does not mind to have it.
>
> So what do you use it for? What do you actually test by this setting?
>
> [...]
>> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> > index 4603ad75c9a9..852cd3dbdcd9 100644
>> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> > @@ -1388,6 +1388,8 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>> > bool ret;
>> >
>> > mutex_lock(&oom_lock);
>> > + pr_info("task=%s pid=%d invoked memcg oom killer. oom_victim=%d\n",
>> > + current->comm, current->pid, tsk_is_oom_victim(current));
>> > ret = out_of_memory(&oc);
>> > mutex_unlock(&oom_lock);
>> > return ret;
>> >
>> > Anyway your memcg setup is indeed misconfigured. Memcg with 0 hard limit
>> > and basically no memory charged by existing tasks is not going to fly
>> > and the warning is exactly to call that out.
>>
>>
>> Please-please-please do not mix kernel bugs and notices to user into
>> the same bucket:
>
> Well, WARN_ON used to be a standard way to make user aware of a
> misbehavior. In this case it warns about a pottential runaway when memcg
> is misconfigured. I do not insist on using WARN_ON here of course. If
> there is a general agreement that such a condition is better handled by
> pr_err then I am fine with it. Users tend to be more sensitive on
> WARN_ONs though.
>
> Btw. running with the above diff on top might help us to ideantify
> whether this is a pre-mature warning or a valid one. Still useful to
> find out.
The bug report has a reproducer, so you can run it with the patch. Or
ask syzbot to test your patch:
https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/master/docs/syzbot.md#testing-patches
Which basically boils down to saying:
#syz test: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
master
Note that a text patch without a base tree/commit can be useless, I
used torvalds/linux.git but I don't know if it will apply there or
not. Let's see.
View attachment "cgroup.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (473 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists