On Wed 17-06-20 21:23:05, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 19:41, Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > [Our emails have crossed]
> >
> > On Wed 17-06-20 14:57:58, Chris Down wrote:
> > > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > > mkfs -t ext4 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-TOSHIBA_MG04ACA100N_Y8RQK14KF6XF
> > > > mke2fs 1.43.8 (1-Jan-2018)
> > > > Creating filesystem with 244190646 4k blocks and 61054976 inodes
> > > > Filesystem UUID: 7c380766-0ed8-41ba-a0de-3c08e78f1891
> > > > Superblock backups stored on blocks:
> > > > 32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 1605632, 2654208,
> > > > 4096000, 7962624, 11239424, 20480000, 23887872, 71663616, 78675968,
> > > > 102400000, 214990848
> > > > Allocating group tables: 0/7453 done
> > > > Writing inode tables: 0/7453 done
> > > > Creating journal (262144 blocks): [ 51.544525] under min:0 emin:0
> > > > [ 51.845304] under min:0 emin:0
> > > > [ 51.848738] under min:0 emin:0
> > > > [ 51.858147] under min:0 emin:0
> > > > [ 51.861333] under min:0 emin:0
> > > > [ 51.862034] under min:0 emin:0
> > > > [ 51.862442] under min:0 emin:0
> > > > [ 51.862763] under min:0 emin:0
> > >
> > > Thanks, this helps a lot. Somehow we're entering mem_cgroup_below_min even
> > > when min/emin is 0 (which should indeed be the case if you haven't set
> > > them
> > > in the hierarchy).
> > >
> > > My guess is that page_counter_read(&memcg->memory) is 0, which means
> > > mem_cgroup_below_min will return 1.
> >
> > Yes this is the case because this is likely the root memcg which skips
> > all charges.
> >
> > > However, I don't know for sure why that should then result in the OOM
> > > killer
> > > coming along. My guess is that since this memcg has 0 pages to scan
> > > anyway,
> > > we enter premature OOM under some conditions. I don't know why we wouldn't
> > > have hit that with the old version of mem_cgroup_protected that returned
> > > MEMCG_PROT_* members, though.
> >
> > Not really. There is likely no other memcg to reclaim from and assuming
> > min limit protection will result in no reclaimable memory and thus the
> > OOM killer.
> >
> > > Can you please try the patch with the `>=` checks in mem_cgroup_below_min
> > > and mem_cgroup_below_low changed to `>`? If that fixes it, then that
> > > gives a
> > > strong hint about what's going on here.
> >
> > This would work but I believe an explicit check for the root memcg would
> > be easier to spot the reasoning.
>
> May I request you to send debugging or proposed fix patches here.
> I am happy to do more testing.
Sure, here is the diff to test.
diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
index c74a8f2323f1..6b5a31672fbe 100644
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -392,6 +392,13 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup
*memcg)
if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
return false;
+ /*
+ * Root memcg doesn't account charges and doesn't support
+ * protection
+ */
+ if (mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
+ return false;
+
return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.elow) >=
page_counter_read(&memcg->memory);
}
@@ -401,6 +408,13 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup
*memcg)
if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
return false;
+ /*
+ * Root memcg doesn't account charges and doesn't support
+ * protection
+ */
+ if (mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
+ return false;
+
return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.emin) >=
page_counter_read(&memcg->memory);
}
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
