linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] mm: fix OOMs for binding workloads to movable zone only node

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: <20201105131957.GI21348@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 5 Nov 2020 14:19:57 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        ying.huang@...el.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] mm: fix OOMs for binding workloads to movable
 zone only node

On Thu 05-11-20 14:14:25, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11/5/20 1:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 05-11-20 13:53:24, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > On 11/5/20 1:08 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Thu 05-11-20 09:40:28, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > > > > > Could you be more specific? This sounds like a bug. Allocations
> > > > > > shouldn't spill over to a node which is not in the cpuset. There are few
> > > > > > exceptions like IRQ context but that shouldn't happen regurarly.
> > > > > > > I mean when the docker starts, it will spawn many processes
> > > which obey
> > > > > the mem binding set, and they have some kernel page requests, which got
> > > > > successfully allocated, like the following callstack:
> > > > > > > 	[  567.044953] CPU: 1 PID: 2021 Comm: runc:[1:CHILD]
> > > Tainted: G        W I       5.9.0-rc8+ #6
> > > > > 	[  567.044956] Hardware name:  /NUC6i5SYB, BIOS SYSKLi35.86A.0051.2016.0804.1114 08/04/2016
> > > > > 	[  567.044958] Call Trace:
> > > > > 	[  567.044972]  dump_stack+0x74/0x9a
> > > > > 	[  567.044978]  __alloc_pages_nodemask.cold+0x22/0xe5
> > > > > 	[  567.044986]  alloc_pages_current+0x87/0xe0
> > > > > 	[  567.044991]  allocate_slab+0x2e5/0x4f0
> > > > > 	[  567.044996]  ___slab_alloc+0x380/0x5d0
> > > > > 	[  567.045021]  __slab_alloc+0x20/0x40
> > > > > 	[  567.045025]  kmem_cache_alloc+0x2a0/0x2e0
> > > > > 	[  567.045033]  mqueue_alloc_inode+0x1a/0x30
> > > > > 	[  567.045041]  alloc_inode+0x22/0xa0
> > > > > 	[  567.045045]  new_inode_pseudo+0x12/0x60
> > > > > 	[  567.045049]  new_inode+0x17/0x30
> > > > > 	[  567.045052]  mqueue_get_inode+0x45/0x3b0
> > > > > 	[  567.045060]  mqueue_fill_super+0x41/0x70
> > > > > 	[  567.045067]  vfs_get_super+0x7f/0x100
> > > > > 	[  567.045074]  get_tree_keyed+0x1d/0x20
> > > > > 	[  567.045080]  mqueue_get_tree+0x1c/0x20
> > > > > 	[  567.045086]  vfs_get_tree+0x2a/0xc0
> > > > > 	[  567.045092]  fc_mount+0x13/0x50
> > > > > 	[  567.045099]  mq_create_mount+0x92/0xe0
> > > > > 	[  567.045102]  mq_init_ns+0x3b/0x50
> > > > > 	[  567.045106]  copy_ipcs+0x10a/0x1b0
> > > > > 	[  567.045113]  create_new_namespaces+0xa6/0x2b0
> > > > > 	[  567.045118]  unshare_nsproxy_namespaces+0x5a/0xb0
> > > > > 	[  567.045124]  ksys_unshare+0x19f/0x360
> > > > > 	[  567.045129]  __x64_sys_unshare+0x12/0x20
> > > > > 	[  567.045135]  do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
> > > > > 	[  567.045143]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> > > > > > > For it, the __alloc_pages_nodemask() will first try
> > > process's targed
> > > > > nodemask(unmovable node here), and there is no availabe zone, so it
> > > > > goes with the NULL nodemask, and get a page in the slowpath.
> > > > > OK, I see your point now. I was not aware of the slab allocator
> > > not
> > > > following cpusets. Sounds like a bug to me.
> > > 
> > > SLAB and SLUB seem to not care about cpusets in the fast path.
> > 
> > Is a fallback to a different node which is outside of the cpuset
> > possible?
> 
> AFAICS anything in per-cpu cache will be allocated without looking at the
> cpuset, so it can be outside of the cpuset. In SLUB slowpath,
> get_partial_node() looking for fallback on the same node will also not look
> at cpuset. get_any_partial() looking for a fallback allocation on any node
> does check cpuset_zone_allowed() and obey it strictly. A fallback to page
> allocator will obey whatever page allocator obeys.

IIUC this means that if there is no strong CPU binding to cpuset nodes
then a runaway is possible. Albeit only partially and relying on
somebody to fill up pcp object caches, right?

Is that an overlook or a decision design or a performance optimization?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs