linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>

  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