Ping... Are there any concerns about this patch?
On Thu 19-11-15 13:30:53, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.com>
>
> Tetsuo Handa has reported that the system might basically livelock in OOM
> condition without triggering the OOM killer. The issue is caused by
> internal dependency of the direct reclaim on vmstat counter updates (via
> zone_reclaimable) which are performed from the workqueue context.
> If all the current workers get assigned to an allocation request,
> though, they will be looping inside the allocator trying to reclaim
> memory but zone_reclaimable can see stalled numbers so it will consider
> a zone reclaimable even though it has been scanned way too much. WQ
> concurrency logic will not consider this situation as a congested workqueue
> because it relies that worker would have to sleep in such a situation.
> This also means that it doesn't try to spawn new workers or invoke
> the rescuer thread if the one is assigned to the queue.
>
> In order to fix this issue we need to do two things. First we have to
> let wq concurrency code know that we are in trouble so we have to do
> a short sleep. In order to prevent from issues handled by 0e093d99763e
> ("writeback: do not sleep on the congestion queue if there are no
> congested BDIs or if significant congestion is not being encountered in
> the current zone") we limit the sleep only to worker threads which are
> the ones of the interest anyway.
>
> The second thing to do is to create a dedicated workqueue for vmstat and
> mark it WQ_MEM_RECLAIM to note it participates in the reclaim and to
> have a spare worker thread for it.
>
> Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
> Cc: stable # 2.6.36+
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.com>
> ---
> [I am convinced that I have posted this as a separate patch but I cannot
> find it in the archive nor in my inbox, so let me try again.]
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> The original issue reported by Tetsuo [1] has seen multiple attempts for
> a fix. The easiest one being [2] which was targeted to the particular
> problem. There was a more general concern that looping inside the
> allocator without ever sleeping breaks the basic assumption of worker
> concurrency logic so the fix should be more general. Another attempt [3]
> therefore added a short (1 jiffy) sleep into the page allocator. This
> would, however, introduce sleeping for all callers of the page allocator
> which is not really needed. This patch tries to be a compromise and
> introduce sleeping only where it matters - for kworkers.
>
> Even though we haven't seen bug reports in the past I would suggest
> backporting this to the stable trees. The issue is present since we have
> stopped useing congestion_wait in the retry loop because WQ concurrency
> is older as well as vmstat worqueue based refresh AFAICS.
>
> [1]
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201510130025.EJF21331.FFOQJtVOMLFHSO%40I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
> [2]
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201510212126.jif90648.hoofjvfqlms...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
> [3]
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201510251952.cef04109.osotlfhfvfj...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
>
> mm/backing-dev.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
> mm/vmstat.c | 6 ++++--
> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
> index 8ed2ffd963c5..7340353f8aea 100644
> --- a/mm/backing-dev.c
> +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
> @@ -957,8 +957,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(congestion_wait);
> * jiffies for either a BDI to exit congestion of the given @sync queue
> * or a write to complete.
> *
> - * In the absence of zone congestion, cond_resched() is called to yield
> - * the processor if necessary but otherwise does not sleep.
> + * In the absence of zone congestion, a short sleep or a cond_resched is
> + * performed to yield the processor and to allow other subsystems to make
> + * a forward progress.
> *
> * The return value is 0 if the sleep is for the full timeout. Otherwise,
> * it is the number of jiffies that were still remaining when the function
> @@ -978,7 +979,19 @@ long wait_iff_congested(struct zone *zone, int sync,
> long timeout)
> */
> if (atomic_read(&nr_wb_congested[sync]) == 0 ||
> !test_bit(ZONE_CONGESTED, &zone->flags)) {
> - cond_resched();
> +
> + /*
> + * Memory allocation/reclaim might be called from a WQ
> + * context and the current implementation of the WQ
> + * concurrency control doesn't recognize that a particular
> + * WQ is congested if the worker thread is looping without
> + * ever sleeping. Therefore we have to do a short sleep
> + * here rather than calling cond_resched().
> + */
> + if (current->flags & PF_WQ_WORKER)
> + schedule_timeout(1);
> + else
> + cond_resched();
>
> /* In case we scheduled, work out time remaining */
> ret = timeout - (jiffies - start);
> diff --git a/mm/vmstat.c b/mm/vmstat.c
> index 45dcbcb5c594..0975da8e3432 100644
> --- a/mm/vmstat.c
> +++ b/mm/vmstat.c
> @@ -1381,6 +1381,7 @@ static const struct file_operations
> proc_vmstat_file_operations = {
> #endif /* CONFIG_PROC_FS */
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +static struct workqueue_struct *vmstat_wq;
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct delayed_work, vmstat_work);
> int sysctl_stat_interval __read_mostly = HZ;
> static cpumask_var_t cpu_stat_off;
> @@ -1393,7 +1394,7 @@ static void vmstat_update(struct work_struct *w)
> * to occur in the future. Keep on running the
> * update worker thread.
> */
> - schedule_delayed_work_on(smp_processor_id(),
> + queue_delayed_work_on(smp_processor_id(), vmstat_wq,
> this_cpu_ptr(&vmstat_work),
> round_jiffies_relative(sysctl_stat_interval));
> } else {
> @@ -1462,7 +1463,7 @@ static void vmstat_shepherd(struct work_struct *w)
> if (need_update(cpu) &&
> cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(cpu, cpu_stat_off))
>
> - schedule_delayed_work_on(cpu,
> + queue_delayed_work_on(cpu, vmstat_wq,
> &per_cpu(vmstat_work, cpu), 0);
>
> put_online_cpus();
> @@ -1551,6 +1552,7 @@ static int __init setup_vmstat(void)
>
> start_shepherd_timer();
> cpu_notifier_register_done();
> + vmstat_wq = alloc_workqueue("vmstat", WQ_FREEZABLE|WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
> proc_create("buddyinfo", S_IRUGO, NULL, &fragmentation_file_operations);
> --
> 2.6.2
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
