linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: memcg: yield cpu when we fail to charge pages

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: <38c678cac5794cb647ba73799bcaf6df5ff6dc3e.camel@cisco.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Sep 2020 19:28:51 +0000
From:   "Julius Hemanth Pitti (jpitti)" <jpitti@...co.com>
To:     "guro@...com" <guro@...com>
CC:     "vdavydov.dev@...il.com" <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        "xe-linux-external(mailer list)" <xe-linux-external@...co.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "mhocko@...nel.org" <mhocko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcg: yield cpu when we fail to charge pages

On Tue, 2020-09-08 at 12:21 -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 11:50:51AM -0700, Julius Hemanth Pitti wrote:
> > For non root CG, in try_charge(), we keep trying
> > to charge until we succeed. On non-preemptive
> > kernel, when we are OOM, this results in holding
> > CPU forever.
> > 
> > On SMP systems, this doesn't create a big problem
> > because oom_reaper get a change to kill victim
> > and make some free pages. However on a single-core
> > CPU (or cases where oom_reaper pinned to same CPU
> > where try_charge is executing), oom_reaper shall
> > never get scheduled and we stay in try_charge forever.
> > 
> > Steps to repo this on non-smp:
> > 1. mount -t tmpfs none /sys/fs/cgroup
> > 2. mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/memory
> > 3. mount -t cgroup none /sys/fs/cgroup/memory -o memory
> > 4. mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/0
> > 5. echo 40M > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/0/memory.limit_in_bytes
> > 6. echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/0/tasks
> > 7. stress -m 5 --vm-bytes 10M --vm-hang 0
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Julius Hemanth Pitti <jpitti@...co.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/memcontrol.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 0d6f3ea86738..4620d70267cb 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -2652,6 +2652,8 @@ static int try_charge(struct mem_cgroup
> > *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> >  	if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> >  		goto force;
> >  
> > +	cond_resched();
> > +
> 
> Can you, please, add a short comment here?
> Something like "give oom_reaper a chance on a non-SMP system"?
Sure.

> 
> >  	/*
> >  	 * keep retrying as long as the memcg oom killer is able to
> > make
> >  	 * a forward progress or bypass the charge if the oom killer
> > -- 
> > 2.17.1
> > 
> 
> The patch makes total sense to me. Please, feel free to add
> Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> after adding a comment.
Thanks, I shall add.

> 
> Thank you!