linux-kernel - [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not share cgroup iteration between reclaimers

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:23:16 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...com
Subject: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not share cgroup iteration between reclaimers

One of our services observed a high rate of cgroup OOM kills in the
presence of large amounts of clean cache. Debugging showed that the
culprit is the shared cgroup iteration in page reclaim.

Under high allocation concurrency, multiple threads enter reclaim at
the same time. Fearing overreclaim when we first switched from the
single global LRU to cgrouped LRU lists, we introduced a shared
iteration state for reclaim invocations - whether 1 or 20 reclaimers
are active concurrently, we only walk the cgroup tree once: the 1st
reclaimer reclaims the first cgroup, the second the second one etc.
With more reclaimers than cgroups, we start another walk from the top.

This sounded reasonable at the time, but the problem is that reclaim
concurrency doesn't scale with allocation concurrency. As reclaim
concurrency increases, the amount of memory individual reclaimers get
to scan gets smaller and smaller. Individual reclaimers may only see
one cgroup per cycle, and that may not have much reclaimable
memory. We see individual reclaimers declare OOM when there is plenty
of reclaimable memory available in cgroups they didn't visit.

This patch does away with the shared iterator, and every reclaimer is
allowed to scan the full cgroup tree and see all of reclaimable
memory, just like it would on a non-cgrouped system. This way, when
OOM is declared, we know that the reclaimer actually had a chance.

To still maintain fairness in reclaim pressure, disallow cgroup
reclaim from bailing out of the tree walk early. Kswapd and regular
direct reclaim already don't bail, so it's not clear why limit reclaim
would have to, especially since it only walks subtrees to begin with.

This change completely eliminates the OOM kills on our service, while
showing no signs of overreclaim - no increased scan rates, %sys time,
or abrupt free memory spikes. I tested across 100 machines that have
64G of RAM and host about 300 cgroups each.

[ It's possible overreclaim never was a *practical* issue to begin
  with - it was simply a concern we had on the mailing lists at the
  time, with no real data to back it up. But we have also added more
  bail-out conditions deeper inside reclaim (e.g. the proportional
  exit in shrink_node_memcg) since. Regardless, now we have data that
  suggests full walks are more reliable and scale just fine. ]

Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
---
 mm/vmscan.c | 22 ++--------------------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index dbdc46a84f63..b2f10fa49c88 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -2667,10 +2667,6 @@ static bool shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)

 	do {
 		struct mem_cgroup *root = sc->target_mem_cgroup;
-		struct mem_cgroup_reclaim_cookie reclaim = {
-			.pgdat = pgdat,
-			.priority = sc->priority,
-		};
 		unsigned long node_lru_pages = 0;
 		struct mem_cgroup *memcg;

@@ -2679,7 +2675,7 @@ static bool shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
 		nr_reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;
 		nr_scanned = sc->nr_scanned;

-		memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(root, NULL, &reclaim);
+		memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(root, NULL, NULL);
 		do {
 			unsigned long lru_pages;
 			unsigned long reclaimed;
@@ -2724,21 +2720,7 @@ static bool shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
 				   sc->nr_scanned - scanned,
 				   sc->nr_reclaimed - reclaimed);

-			/*
-			 * Kswapd have to scan all memory cgroups to fulfill
-			 * the overall scan target for the node.
-			 *
-			 * Limit reclaim, on the other hand, only cares about
-			 * nr_to_reclaim pages to be reclaimed and it will
-			 * retry with decreasing priority if one round over the
-			 * whole hierarchy is not sufficient.
-			 */
-			if (!current_is_kswapd() &&
-					sc->nr_reclaimed >= sc->nr_to_reclaim) {
-				mem_cgroup_iter_break(root, memcg);
-				break;
-			}
-		} while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(root, memcg, &reclaim)));
+		} while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(root, memcg, NULL)));

 		if (reclaim_state) {
 			sc->nr_reclaimed += reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab;
-- 
2.22.0