linux-kernel - Re: [v3 PATCH 4/4] mm: thp: make deferred split shrinker memcg aware

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: <20190625150040.feb6ea9d11fff73a57320a3c@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:00:40 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     ktkhai@...tuozzo.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...e.com, hughd@...gle.com,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, rientjes@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 4/4] mm: thp: make deferred split shrinker memcg
 aware

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 05:56:49 +0800 Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:

> Currently THP deferred split shrinker is not memcg aware, this may cause
> premature OOM with some configuration. For example the below test would
> run into premature OOM easily:
> 
> $ cgcreate -g memory:thp
> $ echo 4G > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/thp/memory/limit_in_bytes
> $ cgexec -g memory:thp transhuge-stress 4000
> 
> transhuge-stress comes from kernel selftest.
> 
> It is easy to hit OOM, but there are still a lot THP on the deferred
> split queue, memcg direct reclaim can't touch them since the deferred
> split shrinker is not memcg aware.
> 
> Convert deferred split shrinker memcg aware by introducing per memcg
> deferred split queue.  The THP should be on either per node or per memcg
> deferred split queue if it belongs to a memcg.  When the page is
> immigrated to the other memcg, it will be immigrated to the target
> memcg's deferred split queue too.
> 
> Reuse the second tail page's deferred_list for per memcg list since the
> same THP can't be on multiple deferred split queues.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -4579,6 +4579,11 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_alloc(void)
>  #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&memcg->cgwb_list);
>  #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> +	spin_lock_init(&memcg->deferred_split_queue.split_queue_lock);
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&memcg->deferred_split_queue.split_queue);
> +	memcg->deferred_split_queue.split_queue_len = 0;
> +#endif
>  	idr_replace(&mem_cgroup_idr, memcg, memcg->id.id);
>  	return memcg;
>  fail:
> @@ -4949,6 +4954,14 @@ static int mem_cgroup_move_account(struct page *page,
>  		__mod_memcg_state(to, NR_WRITEBACK, nr_pages);
>  	}
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> +	if (compound && !list_empty(page_deferred_list(page))) {
> +		spin_lock(&from->deferred_split_queue.split_queue_lock);
> +		list_del(page_deferred_list(page));

It's worrisome that this page still appears to be on the deferred_list
and that the above if() would still succeed.  Should this be
list_del_init()?

> +		from->deferred_split_queue.split_queue_len--;
> +		spin_unlock(&from->deferred_split_queue.split_queue_lock);
> +	}
> +#endif