linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid blocking lock

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]

Date:   Tue, 28 Jan 2020 10:13:52 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid blocking lock_page() in kcompactd

On Tue 28-01-20 00:30:44, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 09:17:12AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 27-01-20 11:06:53, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 04:00:24PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Sun 26-01-20 15:39:35, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 11:53:55AM -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > > > > I suspect the process gets stuck in the retry loop in try_charge(), as
> > > > > > the _shortest_ stacktrace of the perf samples indicated:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > cycles:ppp:
> > > > > >         ffffffffa72963db mem_cgroup_iter
> > > > > >         ffffffffa72980ca mem_cgroup_oom_unlock
> > > > > >         ffffffffa7298c15 try_charge
> > > > > >         ffffffffa729a886 mem_cgroup_try_charge
> > > > > >         ffffffffa720ec03 __add_to_page_cache_locked
> > > > > >         ffffffffa720ee3a add_to_page_cache_lru
> > > > > >         ffffffffa7312ddb iomap_readpages_actor
> > > > > >         ffffffffa73133f7 iomap_apply
> > > > > >         ffffffffa73135da iomap_readpages
> > > > > >         ffffffffa722062e read_pages
> > > > > >         ffffffffa7220b3f __do_page_cache_readahead
> > > > > >         ffffffffa7210554 filemap_fault
> > > > > >         ffffffffc039e41f __xfs_filemap_fault
> > > > > >         ffffffffa724f5e7 __do_fault
> > > > > >         ffffffffa724c5f2 __handle_mm_fault
> > > > > >         ffffffffa724cbc6 handle_mm_fault
> > > > > >         ffffffffa70a313e __do_page_fault
> > > > > >         ffffffffa7a00dfe page_fault
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But I don't see how it could be, the only possible case is when
> > > > > > mem_cgroup_oom() returns OOM_SUCCESS. However I can't
> > > > > > find any clue in dmesg pointing to OOM. These processes in the
> > > > > > same memcg are either running or sleeping (that is not exiting or
> > > > > > coredump'ing), I don't see how and why they could be selected as
> > > > > > a victim of OOM killer. I don't see any signal pending either from
> > > > > > their /proc/X/status.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think this is a situation where we might end up with a genuine deadlock
> > > > > if we're not trylocking the pages.  readahead allocates a batch of
> > > > > locked pages and adds them to the pagecache.  If it has allocated,
> > > > > say, 5 pages, successfully inserted the first three into i_pages, then
> > > > > needs to allocate memory to insert the fourth one into i_pages, and
> > > > > the process then attempts to migrate the pages which are still locked,
> > > > > they will never come unlocked because they haven't yet been submitted
> > > > > to the filesystem for reading.
> > > > 
> > > > Just to make sure I understand. Do you mean this?
> > > > lock_page(A)
> > > > alloc_pages
> > > >   try_to_compact_pages
> > > >     compact_zone_order
> > > >       compact_zone(MIGRATE_SYNC_LIGHT)
> > > >         migrate_pages
> > > > 	  unmap_and_move
> > > > 	    __unmap_and_move
> > > > 	      lock_page(A)
> > > 
> > > Yes.  There's a little more to it than that, eg slab is involved, but
> > > you have it in a nutshell.
> > 
> > I am not deeply familiar with the readahead code. But is there really a
> > high oerder allocation (order > 1) that would trigger compaction in the
> > phase when pages are locked?
> 
> Thanks to sl*b, yes:
> 
> radix_tree_node    80890 102536    584   28    4 : tunables    0    0    0 : slabdata   3662   3662      0
> 
> so it's allocating 4 pages for an allocation of a 576 byte node.

I am not really sure that we do sync migration for costly orders.

> > Btw. the compaction rejects to consider file backed pages when __GFP_FS
> > is not present AFAIR.
> 
> Ah, that would save us.

So the NOFS comes from the mapping GFP mask, right? That is something I
was hoping to get rid of eventually :/ Anyway it would be better to have
an explicit NOFS with a comment explaining why we need that. If for
nothing else then for documentation.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs