linux-kernel - Re: [patch] mm, oom: prevent soft lockup on memcg oom for UP systems

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: <20200310221019.GE8447@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 10 Mar 2020 23:10:19 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: prevent soft lockup on memcg oom for UP systems

On Tue 10-03-20 14:39:48, David Rientjes wrote:
> When a process is oom killed as a result of memcg limits and the victim
> is waiting to exit, nothing ends up actually yielding the processor back
> to the victim on UP systems with preemption disabled.  Instead, the
> charging process simply loops in memcg reclaim and eventually soft
> lockups.
> 
> Memory cgroup out of memory: Killed process 808 (repro) total-vm:41944kB, anon-rss:35344kB, file-rss:504kB, shmem-rss:0kB, UID:0 pgtables:108kB oom_score_adj:0
> watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 23s! [repro:806]
> CPU: 0 PID: 806 Comm: repro Not tainted 5.6.0-rc5+ #136
> RIP: 0010:shrink_lruvec+0x4e9/0xa40
> ...
> Call Trace:
>  shrink_node+0x40d/0x7d0
>  do_try_to_free_pages+0x13f/0x470
>  try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages+0x16d/0x230
>  try_charge+0x247/0xac0
>  mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x10a/0x220
>  mem_cgroup_try_charge_delay+0x1e/0x40
>  handle_mm_fault+0xdf2/0x15f0
>  do_user_addr_fault+0x21f/0x420
>  page_fault+0x2f/0x40
> 
> Make sure that something ends up actually yielding the processor back to
> the victim to allow for memory freeing.  Most appropriate place appears to
> be shrink_node_memcgs() where the iteration of all decendant memcgs could
> be particularly lengthy.

There is a cond_resched in shrink_lruvec and another one in
shrink_page_list. Why doesn't any of them hit? Is it because there are
no pages on the LRU list? Because rss data suggests there should be
enough pages to go that path. Or maybe it is shrink_slab path that takes
too long?

The patch itself makes sense to me but I would like to see more
explanation on how that happens.

Thanks.

> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2637,6 +2637,8 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
>  		unsigned long reclaimed;
>  		unsigned long scanned;
>  
> +		cond_resched();
> +
>  		switch (mem_cgroup_protected(target_memcg, memcg)) {
>  		case MEMCG_PROT_MIN:
>  			/*

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs