linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: memcg: Fix memcg reclaim soft lockup

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:   Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:45:06 +0800
From:   xunlei <xlpang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcg: Fix memcg reclaim soft lockup

On 2020/8/26 下午7:00, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-08-20 18:41:18, xunlei wrote:
>> On 2020/8/26 下午4:11, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 26-08-20 15:27:02, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>>>> We've met softlockup with "CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y", when
>>>> the target memcg doesn't have any reclaimable memory.
>>>
>>> Do you have any scenario when this happens or is this some sort of a
>>> test case?
>>
>> It can happen on tiny guest scenarios.
> 
> OK, you made me more curious. If this is a tiny guest and this is a hard
> limit reclaim path then we should trigger an oom killer which should
> kill the offender and that in turn bail out from the try_charge lopp
> (see should_force_charge). So how come this repeats enough in your setup
> that it causes soft lockups?
> 

    oom_status = mem_cgroup_oom(mem_over_limit, gfp_mask,
               get_order(nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE));
    switch (oom_status) {
    case OOM_SUCCESS:
        nr_retries = MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
        goto retry;

It retries here endlessly, because oom reaper has no cpu to schedule.