From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.76]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id mBA8o3Jv026037 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:50:03 +0900 Received: from smail (m6 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E5DF45DE51 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:50:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.96]) by m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FAB45DE4F for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:50:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E6A1DB803B for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:50:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.103]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D0871DB8045 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:49:59 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:49:06 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][RFT] memcg fix cgroup_mutex deadlock when cpuset reclaims memory Message-Id: <20081210174906.7c1a1a50.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20081210051947.GH7593@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20081210051947.GH7593@balbir.in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: menage@google.com, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Daisuke Miyakawa , YAMAMOTO Takashi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:49:47 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > Hi, > > Here is a proposed fix for the memory controller cgroup_mutex deadlock > reported. It is lightly tested and reviewed. I need help with review > and test. Is the reported deadlock reproducible after this patch? A > careful review of the cpuset impact will also be highly appreciated. > > From: Balbir Singh > > cpuset_migrate_mm() holds cgroup_mutex throughout the duration of > do_migrate_pages(). The issue with that is that > > 1. It can lead to deadlock with memcg, as do_migrate_pages() > enters reclaim > 2. It can lead to long latencies, preventing users from creating/ > destroying other cgroups anywhere else > > The patch holds callback_mutex through the duration of cpuset_migrate_mm() and > gives up cgroup_mutex while doing so. > > Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh > --- > > include/linux/cpuset.h | 13 ++++++++++++- > kernel/cpuset.c | 23 ++++++++++++----------- > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff -puN kernel/cgroup.c~cpuset-remove-cgroup-mutex-from-update-path kernel/cgroup.c > diff -puN kernel/cpuset.c~cpuset-remove-cgroup-mutex-from-update-path kernel/cpuset.c > --- a/kernel/cpuset.c~cpuset-remove-cgroup-mutex-from-update-path > +++ a/kernel/cpuset.c > @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ static void guarantee_online_mems(const > * task has been modifying its cpuset. > */ > > -void cpuset_update_task_memory_state(void) > +void __cpuset_update_task_memory_state(bool held) > { > int my_cpusets_mem_gen; > struct task_struct *tsk = current; > @@ -380,7 +380,8 @@ void cpuset_update_task_memory_state(voi > rcu_read_unlock(); > > if (my_cpusets_mem_gen != tsk->cpuset_mems_generation) { > - mutex_lock(&callback_mutex); > + if (!held) > + mutex_lock(&callback_mutex); > task_lock(tsk); > cs = task_cs(tsk); /* Maybe changed when task not locked */ > guarantee_online_mems(cs, &tsk->mems_allowed); > @@ -394,7 +395,8 @@ void cpuset_update_task_memory_state(voi > else > tsk->flags &= ~PF_SPREAD_SLAB; > task_unlock(tsk); > - mutex_unlock(&callback_mutex); > + if (!held) > + mutex_unlock(&callback_mutex); > mpol_rebind_task(tsk, &tsk->mems_allowed); > } > } > @@ -949,13 +951,15 @@ static int update_cpumask(struct cpuset > * so that the migration code can allocate pages on these nodes. > * > * Call holding cgroup_mutex, so current's cpuset won't change > - * during this call, as manage_mutex holds off any cpuset_attach() > + * during this call, as callback_mutex holds off any cpuset_attach() > * calls. Therefore we don't need to take task_lock around the > * call to guarantee_online_mems(), as we know no one is changing > * our task's cpuset. > * > * Hold callback_mutex around the two modifications of our tasks > - * mems_allowed to synchronize with cpuset_mems_allowed(). > + * mems_allowed to synchronize with cpuset_mems_allowed(). Give > + * up cgroup_mutex to avoid deadlocking with other subsystems > + * as we enter reclaim from do_migrate_pages(). > * > * While the mm_struct we are migrating is typically from some > * other task, the task_struct mems_allowed that we are hacking > @@ -976,17 +980,14 @@ static void cpuset_migrate_mm(struct mm_ > { > struct task_struct *tsk = current; > > - cpuset_update_task_memory_state(); > - > + cgroup_unlock(); > mutex_lock(&callback_mutex); > + cpuset_update_task_memory_state_locked(); > tsk->mems_allowed = *to; > - mutex_unlock(&callback_mutex); > - > do_migrate_pages(mm, from, to, MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL); > - > - mutex_lock(&callback_mutex); > guarantee_online_mems(task_cs(tsk),&tsk->mems_allowed); > mutex_unlock(&callback_mutex); > + cgroup_lock(); > } > Hmm...can't this happen ? Assume there is a task X and cgroup Z1 and Z2. Z1 and Z2 doesn't need to be in the same hierarchy. == CPU A attach task X to cgroup Z1 cgroup_lock() for_each_subsys_state() => attach(X,Z) => migrate_mm() => cgroup_unlock() migration CPU B attach task X to cgroup Z2 at the same time cgroup_lock() replace css_set. == Works on CPU B can't break for_each_subsys_state() in CPU A ? Sorry if I misunderstand. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org