linux-kernel - Re: [v3 PATCH] mm: list_lru: set shrinker map bit when child nr

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkoLdnexMEt0Qvs0WoXrMGeFp68G6aWbLzwgJ9Uf1n6xzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Dec 2020 08:52:05 -0800
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH] mm: list_lru: set shrinker map bit when child nr_items
 is not zero

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 7:01 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 1:25 PM Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > When investigating a slab cache bloat problem, significant amount of
> > negative dentry cache was seen, but confusingly they neither got shrunk
> > by reclaimer (the host has very tight memory) nor be shrunk by dropping
> > cache.  The vmcore shows there are over 14M negative dentry objects on lru,
> > but tracing result shows they were even not scanned at all.  The further
> > investigation shows the memcg's vfs shrinker_map bit is not set.  So the
> > reclaimer or dropping cache just skip calling vfs shrinker.  So we have
> > to reboot the hosts to get the memory back.
> >
> > I didn't manage to come up with a reproducer in test environment, and the
> > problem can't be reproduced after rebooting.  But it seems there is race
> > between shrinker map bit clear and reparenting by code inspection.  The
> > hypothesis is elaborated as below.
> >
> > The memcg hierarchy on our production environment looks like:
> >                 root
> >                /    \
> >           system   user
> >
> > The main workloads are running under user slice's children, and it creates
> > and removes memcg frequently.  So reparenting happens very often under user
> > slice, but no task is under user slice directly.
> >
> > So with the frequent reparenting and tight memory pressure, the below
> > hypothetical race condition may happen:
> >
> >        CPU A                            CPU B
> > reparent
> >     dst->nr_items == 0
> >                                  shrinker:
> >                                      total_objects == 0
> >     add src->nr_items to dst
> >     set_bit
> >                                      retrun SHRINK_EMPTY
>
> return
>
> >                                      clear_bit
> > child memcg offline
> >     replace child's kmemcg_id to
>
> with
>
> >     parent's (in memcg_offline_kmem())
> >                                   list_lru_del() between shrinker runs
> >                                      see parent's kmemcg_id
> >                                      dec dst->nr_items
> > reparent again
> >     dst->nr_items may go negative
> >     due to concurrent list_lru_del()
> >
> >                                  The second run of shrinker:
> >                                      read nr_items without any
> >                                      synchronization, so it may
> >                                      see intermediate negative
> >                                      nr_items then total_objects
> >                                      may return 0 conincidently
>
> coincidently
>
> >
> >                                      keep the bit cleared
> >     dst->nr_items != 0
> >     skip set_bit
> >     add scr->nr_item to dst
> >
> > After this point dst->nr_item may never go zero, so reparenting will not
> > set shrinker_map bit anymore.  And since there is no task under user
> > slice directly, so no new object will be added to its lru to set the
> > shrinker map bit either.  That bit is kept cleared forever.
> >
> > How does list_lru_del() race with reparenting?  It is because
> > reparenting replaces childen's kmemcg_id to parent's without protecting
>
> children's
>
> > from nlru->lock, so list_lru_del() may see parent's kmemcg_id but
> > actually deleting items from child's lru, but dec'ing parent's nr_items,
> > so the parent's nr_items may go negative as commit
> > 2788cf0c401c268b4819c5407493a8769b7007aa ("memcg: reparent list_lrus and
> > free kmemcg_id on css offline") says.
> >
> > Since it is impossible that dst->nr_items goes negative and
> > src->nr_items goes zero at the same time, so it seems we could set the
> > shrinker map bit iff src->nr_items != 0.  We could synchronize
> > list_lru_count_one() and reparenting with nlru->lock, but it seems
> > checking src->nr_items in reparenting is the simplest and avoids lock
> > contention.
> >
> > Fixes: fae91d6d8be5 ("mm/list_lru.c: set bit in memcg shrinker bitmap on first list_lru item appearance")
> > Suggested-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> > Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> > Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
> > Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
> > Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
> > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> v4.19+
> > Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>

Thanks for finding those spelling errors. Will fix in v4.