From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: [RFC 1/6] mm, page_alloc: fix more premature OOM due to race with cpuset update
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:06:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170411140609.3787-2-vbabka@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170411140609.3787-1-vbabka@suse.cz>
Commit e47483bca2cc ("mm, page_alloc: fix premature OOM when racing with cpuset
mems update") has fixed known recent regressions found by LTP's cpuset01
testcase. I have however found that by modifying the testcase to use per-vma
mempolicies via bind(2) instead of per-task mempolicies via set_mempolicy(2),
the premature OOM still happens and the issue is much older.
The root of the problem is that the cpuset's mems_allowed and mempolicy's
nodemask can temporarily have no intersection, thus get_page_from_freelist()
cannot find any usable zone. The current semantic for empty intersection is to
ignore mempolicy's nodemask and honour cpuset restrictions. This is checked in
node_zonelist(), but the racy update can happen after we already passed the
check. Such races should be protected by the seqlock task->mems_allowed_seq,
but it doesn't work here, because 1) mpol_rebind_mm() does not happen under
seqlock for write, and doing so would lead to deadlock, as it takes mmap_sem
for write, while the allocation can have mmap_sem for read when it's taking the
seqlock for read. And 2) the seqlock cookie of callers of node_zonelist()
(alloc_pages_vma() and alloc_pages_current()) is different than the one of
__alloc_pages_slowpath(), so there's still a potential race window.
This patch fixes the issue by having __alloc_pages_slowpath() check for empty
intersection of cpuset and ac->nodemask before OOM or allocation failure. If
it's indeed empty, the nodemask is ignored and allocation retried, which mimics
node_zonelist(). This works fine, because almost all callers of
__alloc_pages_nodemask are obtaining the nodemask via node_zonelist(). The only
exception is new_node_page() from hotplug, where the potential violation of
nodemask isn't an issue, as there's already a fallback allocation attempt
without any nodemask. If there's a future caller that needs to have its specific
nodemask honoured over task's cpuset restrictions, we'll have to e.g. add a gfp
flag for that.
Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 32b31d661c9c..502d82f0e004 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3668,6 +3668,39 @@ should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order,
return false;
}
+static inline bool
+check_retry_cpuset(int cpuset_mems_cookie, struct alloc_context *ac)
+{
+ /*
+ * It's possible that cpuset's mems_allowed and the nodemask from
+ * mempolicy don't intersect. This should be normally dealt with by
+ * policy_nodemask(), but it's possible to race with cpuset update in
+ * such a way the check therein was true, and then it became false
+ * before we got our cpuset_mems_cookie here.
+ * This assumes that for all allocations, ac->nodemask can come only
+ * from MPOL_BIND mempolicy (whose documented semantics is to be ignored
+ * when it does not intersect with the cpuset restrictions) or the
+ * caller can deal with a violated nodemask.
+ */
+ if (cpusets_enabled() && ac->nodemask &&
+ !cpuset_nodemask_valid_mems_allowed(ac->nodemask)) {
+ ac->nodemask = NULL;
+ return true;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * When updating a task's mems_allowed or mempolicy nodemask, it is
+ * possible to race with parallel threads in such a way that our
+ * allocation can fail while the mask is being updated. If we are about
+ * to fail, check if the cpuset changed during allocation and if so,
+ * retry.
+ */
+ if (read_mems_allowed_retry(cpuset_mems_cookie))
+ return true;
+
+ return false;
+}
+
static inline struct page *
__alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
struct alloc_context *ac)
@@ -3863,11 +3896,9 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
&compaction_retries))
goto retry;
- /*
- * It's possible we raced with cpuset update so the OOM would be
- * premature (see below the nopage: label for full explanation).
- */
- if (read_mems_allowed_retry(cpuset_mems_cookie))
+
+ /* Deal with possible cpuset update races before we start OOM killing */
+ if (check_retry_cpuset(cpuset_mems_cookie, ac))
goto retry_cpuset;
/* Reclaim has failed us, start killing things */
@@ -3886,14 +3917,8 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
}
nopage:
- /*
- * When updating a task's mems_allowed or mempolicy nodemask, it is
- * possible to race with parallel threads in such a way that our
- * allocation can fail while the mask is being updated. If we are about
- * to fail, check if the cpuset changed during allocation and if so,
- * retry.
- */
- if (read_mems_allowed_retry(cpuset_mems_cookie))
+ /* Deal with possible cpuset update races before we fail */
+ if (check_retry_cpuset(cpuset_mems_cookie, ac))
goto retry_cpuset;
/*
--
2.12.2
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-11 14:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-11 14:06 [RFC 0/6] cpuset/mempolicies related fixes and cleanups Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-11 14:06 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2017-04-11 17:24 ` [RFC 1/6] mm, page_alloc: fix more premature OOM due to race with cpuset update Christoph Lameter
2017-04-11 19:00 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-12 21:25 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-04-13 6:24 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-14 20:37 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-04-26 8:07 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-30 21:33 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-17 9:20 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-17 13:56 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-17 14:05 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-17 14:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-17 14:56 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-17 15:25 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-18 9:08 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-18 16:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-18 17:24 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-18 19:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-19 7:37 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-17 15:27 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-18 10:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-18 17:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-19 11:27 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-13 5:42 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-04-13 6:06 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-13 6:07 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-11 14:06 ` [RFC 2/6] mm, mempolicy: stop adjusting current->il_next in mpol_rebind_nodemask() Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-11 17:32 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-04-11 19:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-12 8:49 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-12 21:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-04-12 21:18 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-11 14:06 ` [RFC 3/6] mm, page_alloc: pass preferred nid instead of zonelist to allocator Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-11 14:06 ` [RFC 4/6] mm, mempolicy: simplify rebinding mempolicies when updating cpusets Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-11 14:06 ` [RFC 5/6] mm, cpuset: always use seqlock when changing task's nodemask Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-12 8:10 ` Hillf Danton
2017-04-12 8:18 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-11 14:06 ` [RFC 6/6] mm, mempolicy: don't check cpuset seqlock where it doesn't matter Vlastimil Babka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170411140609.3787-2-vbabka@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox