linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: fix hanging shrinker management on long do_shrink

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: <20191204083514.GC25242@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 4 Dec 2019 09:35:14 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Konstantin Khorenko <khorenko@...tuozzo.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix hanging shrinker management on long
 do_shrink_slab

On Sat 30-11-19 00:45:41, Pavel Tikhomirov wrote:
> We have a problem that shrinker_rwsem can be held for a long time for
> read in shrink_slab, at the same time any process which is trying to
> manage shrinkers hangs.
> 
> The shrinker_rwsem is taken in shrink_slab while traversing shrinker_list.
> It tries to shrink something on nfs (hard) but nfs server is dead at
> these moment already and rpc will never succeed. Generally any shrinker
> can take significant time to do_shrink_slab, so it's a bad idea to hold
> the list lock here.

Yes, this is a known problem and people have already tried to address it
in the past. Have you checked previous attempts? SRCU based one
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/153365347929.19074.12509495712735843805.stgit@localhost.localdomain
but I believe there were others (I only had this one in my notes).
Please make sure to Cc Dave Chinner when posting a next version because
he had some concerns about the change of the behavior.

> We have a similar problem in shrink_slab_memcg, except that we are
> traversing shrinker_map+shrinker_idr there.
> 
> The idea of the patch is to inc a refcount to the chosen shrinker so it
> won't disappear and release shrinker_rwsem while we are in
> do_shrink_slab, after that we will reacquire shrinker_rwsem, dec
> the refcount and continue the traversal.

The reference count part makes sense to me. RCU role needs a better
explanation. Also do you have any reason to not use completion for
the final step? Openconding essentially the same concept sounds a bit
awkward to me.

> We also need a wait_queue so that unregister_shrinker can wait for the
> refcnt to become zero. Only after these we can safely remove the
> shrinker from list and idr, and free the shrinker.
[...]
>   crash> bt ...
>   PID: 18739  TASK: ...  CPU: 3   COMMAND: "bash"
>    #0 [...] __schedule at ...
>    #1 [...] schedule at ...
>    #2 [...] rpc_wait_bit_killable at ... [sunrpc]
>    #3 [...] __wait_on_bit at ...
>    #4 [...] out_of_line_wait_on_bit at ...
>    #5 [...] _nfs4_proc_delegreturn at ... [nfsv4]
>    #6 [...] nfs4_proc_delegreturn at ... [nfsv4]
>    #7 [...] nfs_do_return_delegation at ... [nfsv4]
>    #8 [...] nfs4_evict_inode at ... [nfsv4]
>    #9 [...] evict at ...
>   #10 [...] dispose_list at ...
>   #11 [...] prune_icache_sb at ...
>   #12 [...] super_cache_scan at ...
>   #13 [...] do_shrink_slab at ...

Are NFS people aware of this? Because this is simply not acceptable
behavior. Memory reclaim cannot be block indefinitely or for a long
time. There must be a way to simply give up if the underlying inode
cannot be reclaimed.

I still have to think about the proposed solution. It sounds a bit over
complicated to me.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs