linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: fix occasional OOMs due to proportional memory.low reclaim

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:   Fri, 20 Aug 2021 17:44:54 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Leon Yang <lnyng@...com>, Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: fix occasional OOMs due to proportional
 memory.low reclaim

On Thu 19-08-21 16:38:59, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 05:01:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > The logic is spread over 3 different places.
> > 
> > Would something like the following be more understandable?
> > 
> > 			/*
> > 			 * Low limit protected memcgs are already excluded at
> > 			 * a higher level (shrink_node_memcgs) but scaling
> > 			 * down the reclaim target can result in hard to
> > 			 * reclaim and premature OOM. We do not have a full
> > 			 * picture here so we cannot really judge this
> > 			 * sutuation here but pro-actively flag this scenario
> > 			 * and let do_try_to_free_pages to retry if
> > 			 * there is no progress.
> > 			 */
> 
> I've been drafting around with this, but it seems to say the same
> thing as the comment I put into struct scan_control already:
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Cgroup memory below memory.low is protected as long as we
> 	 * don't threaten to OOM. If any cgroup is reclaimed at
> 	 * reduced force or passed over entirely due to its memory.low
> 	 * setting (memcg_low_skipped), and nothing is reclaimed as a
> 	 * result, then go back back for one more cycle that reclaims
> 	 * the protected memory (memcg_low_reclaim) to avert OOM.
> 	 */
> 
> How about a brief version of this with a pointer to the original?
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 701106e1829c..c32d686719d5 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2580,7 +2580,12 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc,
>  			unsigned long cgroup_size = mem_cgroup_size(memcg);
>  			unsigned long protection;
>  
> -			/* memory.low scaling, make sure we retry before OOM */
> +			/*
> +			 * Soft protection must not cause reclaim failure. Let
> +			 * the upper level know if we skipped pages during the
> +			 * first pass, so it can retry if necessary. See the
> +			 * struct scan_control definition of those flags.
> +			 */
>  			if (!sc->memcg_low_reclaim && low > min) {
>  				protection = low;
>  				sc->memcg_low_skipped = 1;
> @@ -2853,16 +2858,16 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
>  
>  		if (mem_cgroup_below_min(memcg)) {
>  			/*
> -			 * Hard protection.
> -			 * If there is no reclaimable memory, OOM.
> +			 * Hard protection. Always respected. If there is not
> +			 * enough reclaimable memory elsewhere, it's an OOM.
>  			 */
>  			continue;
>  		} else if (mem_cgroup_below_low(memcg)) {
>  			/*
> -			 * Soft protection.
> -			 * Respect the protection only as long as
> -			 * there is an unprotected supply
> -			 * of reclaimable memory from other cgroups.
> +			 * Soft protection must not cause reclaim failure. Let
> +			 * the upper level know if we skipped pages during the
> +			 * first pass, so it can retry if necessary. See the
> +			 * struct scan_control definition of those flags.
>  			 */
>  			if (!sc->memcg_low_reclaim) {
>  				sc->memcg_low_skipped = 1;

Yes, this makes the situation more explicit. I still see some advantage
to be explicit about those other layers as this will be easier to follow
the code but I will certainly not insist.

Andrew has already sent your original patch to Linus so this will need
to go as a separate patch. For that
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

Thanks!

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs