From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memcg: Fix memcg reclaim soft lockup
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:29:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200826172953.GT22869@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200826164332.GB995045@cmpxchg.org>
On Wed 26-08-20 12:43:32, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 09:47:02PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> > We've met softlockup with "CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y", when
> > the target memcg doesn't have any reclaimable memory.
> >
> > It can be easily reproduced as below:
> > watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 111s![memcg_test:2204]
> > CPU: 0 PID: 2204 Comm: memcg_test Not tainted 5.9.0-rc2+ #12
> > Call Trace:
> > shrink_lruvec+0x49f/0x640
> > shrink_node+0x2a6/0x6f0
> > do_try_to_free_pages+0xe9/0x3e0
> > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages+0xef/0x1f0
> > try_charge+0x2c1/0x750
> > mem_cgroup_charge+0xd7/0x240
> > __add_to_page_cache_locked+0x2fd/0x370
> > add_to_page_cache_lru+0x4a/0xc0
> > pagecache_get_page+0x10b/0x2f0
> > filemap_fault+0x661/0xad0
> > ext4_filemap_fault+0x2c/0x40
> > __do_fault+0x4d/0xf9
> > handle_mm_fault+0x1080/0x1790
> >
> > It only happens on our 1-vcpu instances, because there's no chance
> > for oom reaper to run to reclaim the to-be-killed process.
> >
> > Add cond_resched() at the upper shrink_node_memcgs() to solve this
> > issue, and any other possible issue like meomry.min protection.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>
>
> This generally makes sense to me but really should have a comment:
>
> /*
> * This loop can become CPU-bound when there are thousands
> * of cgroups that aren't eligible for reclaim - either
> * because they don't have any pages, or because their
> * memory is explicitly protected. Avoid soft lockups.
> */
> cond_resched();
>
> The placement in the middle of the multi-part protection checks is a
> bit odd too. It would be better to have it either at the top of the
> loop, or at the end, by replacing the continues with goto next.
Yes makes sense. I would stick it to the begining of the loop to make it
stand out and make it obvious wrt code flow.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-26 17:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-26 13:47 Xunlei Pang
2020-08-26 14:10 ` Chris Down
2020-08-26 18:17 ` Chris Down
2020-08-26 15:05 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-26 16:43 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-08-26 17:29 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
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=20200826172953.GT22869@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
--cc=xlpang@linux.alibaba.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