Message-ID: <d4e9328b-58ae-9e64-8703-63bdaa63e437@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 21:04:48 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, naoya.horiguchi@....com,
        osalvador@...e.de, tdmackey@...tter.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        corbet@....net
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: hwpoison: don't drop slab caches for offlining
 non-LRU page

On 16.08.21 21:02, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 16.08.21 20:09, Yang Shi wrote:
>> In the current implementation of soft offline, if non-LRU page is met,
>> all the slab caches will be dropped to free the page then offline.  But
>> if the page is not slab page all the effort is wasted in vain.  Even
>> though it is a slab page, it is not guaranteed the page could be freed
>> at all.
>>
>> However the side effect and cost is quite high.  It does not only drop
>> the slab caches, but also may drop a significant amount of page caches
>> which are associated with inode caches.  It could make the most
>> workingset gone in order to just offline a page.  And the offline is not
>> guaranteed to succeed at all, actually I really doubt the success rate
>> for real life workload.
>>
>> Furthermore the worse consequence is the system may be locked up and
>> unusable since the page cache release may incur huge amount of works
>> queued for memcg release.
>>
>> Actually we ran into such unpleasant case in our production environment.
>> Firstly, the workqueue of memory_failure_work_func is locked up as
>> below:
>>
>> BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=1 node=0 flags=0x0 nice=0 stuck for 53s!
>> Showing busy workqueues and worker pools:
>> workqueue events: flags=0x0
>>     pwq 2: cpus=1 node=0 flags=0x0 nice=0 active=14/256 refcnt=15
>>       in-flight: 409271:memory_failure_work_func
>>       pending: kfree_rcu_work, kfree_rcu_monitor, kfree_rcu_work, rht_deferred_worker, rht_deferred_worker, rht_deferred_worker, rht_deferred_worker, kfree_rcu_work, kfree_rcu_work, kfree_rcu_work, kfree_rcu_work, drain_local_stock, kfree_rcu_work
>> workqueue mm_percpu_wq: flags=0x8
>>     pwq 2: cpus=1 node=0 flags=0x0 nice=0 active=1/256 refcnt=2
>>       pending: vmstat_update
>> workqueue cgroup_destroy: flags=0x0
>>     pwq 2: cpus=1 node=0 flags=0x0 nice=0 active=1/1 refcnt=12072
>>       pending: css_release_work_fn
>>
>> There were over 12K css_release_work_fn queued, and this caused a few
>> lockups due to the contention of worker pool lock with IRQ disabled, for
>> example:
>>
>> NMI watchdog: Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 1
>> Modules linked in: amd64_edac_mod edac_mce_amd crct10dif_pclmul crc32_pclmul ghash_clmulni_intel xt_DSCP iptable_mangle kvm_amd bpfilter vfat fat acpi_ipmi i2c_piix4 usb_storage ipmi_si k10temp i2c_core ipmi_devintf ipmi_msghandler acpi_cpufreq sch_fq_codel xfs libcrc32c crc32c_intel mlx5_core mlxfw nvme xhci_pci ptp nvme_core pps_core xhci_hcd
>> CPU: 1 PID: 205500 Comm: kworker/1:0 Tainted: G             L    5.10.32-t1.el7.twitter.x86_64 #1
>> Hardware name: TYAN F5AMT /z        /S8026GM2NRE-CGN, BIOS V8.030 03/30/2021
>> Workqueue: events memory_failure_work_func
>> RIP: 0010:queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x41/0x1a0
>> Code: 41 f0 0f ba 2f 08 0f 92 c0 0f b6 c0 c1 e0 08 89 c2 8b 07 30 e4 09 d0 a9 00 01 ff ff 75 1b 85 c0 74 0e 8b 07 84 c0 74 08 f3 90 <8b> 07 84 c0 75 f8 b8 01 00 00 00 66 89 07 c3 f6 c4 01 75 04 c6 47
>> RSP: 0018:ffff9b2ac278f900 EFLAGS: 00000002
>> RAX: 0000000000480101 RBX: ffff8ce98ce71800 RCX: 0000000000000084
>> RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffff8ce98ce6a140
>> RBP: 00000000000284c8 R08: ffffd7248dcb6808 R09: 0000000000000000
>> R10: 0000000000000003 R11: ffff9b2ac278f9b0 R12: 0000000000000001
>> R13: ffff8cb44dab9c00 R14: ffffffffbd1ce6a0 R15: ffff8cacaa37f068
>> FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8ce98ce40000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>> CR2: 00007fcf6e8cb000 CR3: 0000000a0c60a000 CR4: 0000000000350ee0
>> Call Trace:
>>    __queue_work+0xd6/0x3c0
>>    queue_work_on+0x1c/0x30
>>    uncharge_batch+0x10e/0x110
>>    mem_cgroup_uncharge_list+0x6d/0x80
>>    release_pages+0x37f/0x3f0
>>    __pagevec_release+0x1c/0x50
>>    __invalidate_mapping_pages+0x348/0x380
>>    ? xfs_alloc_buftarg+0xa4/0x120 [xfs]
>>    inode_lru_isolate+0x10a/0x160
>>    ? iput+0x1d0/0x1d0
>>    __list_lru_walk_one+0x7b/0x170
>>    ? iput+0x1d0/0x1d0
>>    list_lru_walk_one+0x4a/0x60
>>    prune_icache_sb+0x37/0x50
>>    super_cache_scan+0x123/0x1a0
>>    do_shrink_slab+0x10c/0x2c0
>>    shrink_slab+0x1f1/0x290
>>    drop_slab_node+0x4d/0x70
>>    soft_offline_page+0x1ac/0x5b0
>>    ? dev_mce_log+0xee/0x110
>>    ? notifier_call_chain+0x39/0x90
>>    memory_failure_work_func+0x6a/0x90
>>    process_one_work+0x19e/0x340
>>    ? process_one_work+0x340/0x340
>>    worker_thread+0x30/0x360
>>    ? process_one_work+0x340/0x340
>>    kthread+0x116/0x130
> 
> Just curious, who actually ends up calling soft_offline_page() ? I
> cannot really make sense of this, looking at upstream Linux.
> 
> I can spot
> 
> a) drivers/base/memory.c: /sys/devices/system/memory/soft_offline_page
> seems to be a testing interface
> 
> b) MADV_SOFT_OFFLINE seems to be a testing interface as well
> 
> c) arch/parisc/kernel/pdt.c doesn't apply to your case I guess?
> 
> I'm just wondering who ends up calling soft_offline_page() in a
> production environment and via which call path. I'm most probably
> missing something.
> 

... and I missed memory_failure_work_func() with MF_SOFT_OFFLINE :)

Ignore my question :)

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists