[PATCH v2] page_alloc: fix invalid watemark check on a negative value

[PATCH v2] page_alloc: fix invalid watemark check on a negative value

[Jaewon Kim]

There was a report that a task is waiting at the
throttle_direct_reclaim. The pgscan_direct_throttle in vmstat was
increasing.

This is a bug where zone_watermark_fast returns true even when the free
is very low. The commit f27ce0e14088 ("page_alloc: consider highatomic
reserve in watermark fast") changed the watermark fast to consider
highatomic reserve. But it did not handle a negative value case which
can be happened when reserved_highatomic pageblock is bigger than the
actual free.

If watermark is considered as ok for the negative value, allocating
contexts for order-0 will consume all free pages without direct reclaim,
and finally free page may become depleted except highatomic free.

Then allocating contexts may fall into throttle_direct_reclaim. This
symptom may easily happen in a system where wmark min is low and other
reclaimers like kswapd does not make free pages quickly.

Handle the negative case by using MIN.

Fixes: f27ce0e14088 ("page_alloc: consider highatomic reserve in watermark fast")
Reported-by: GyeongHwan Hong <gh21.hong@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@samsung.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
---
v2: use explicit code suggested by Mel Gorman
v1: use signed min
---

 mm/page_alloc.c | 12 ++++++++----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index e008a3df0485..b5b14b78c4fd 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3968,11 +3968,15 @@ static inline bool zone_watermark_fast(struct zone *z, unsigned int order,
 	 * need to be calculated.
 	 */
 	if (!order) {
-		long fast_free;
+		long usable_free;
+		long reserved;
 
-		fast_free = free_pages;
-		fast_free -= __zone_watermark_unusable_free(z, 0, alloc_flags);
-		if (fast_free > mark + z->lowmem_reserve[highest_zoneidx])
+		usable_free = free_pages;
+		reserved = __zone_watermark_unusable_free(z, 0, alloc_flags);
+
+		/* reserved may over estimate high-atomic reserves. */
+		usable_free -= min(usable_free, reserved);
+		if (usable_free > mark + z->lowmem_reserve[highest_zoneidx])
 			return true;
 	}
 
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH v2] page_alloc: fix invalid watemark check on a negative value

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 18:52:12 +0900 Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@samsung.com> wrote:

> There was a report that a task is waiting at the
> throttle_direct_reclaim. The pgscan_direct_throttle in vmstat was
> increasing.
> 
> This is a bug where zone_watermark_fast returns true even when the free
> is very low. The commit f27ce0e14088 ("page_alloc: consider highatomic
> reserve in watermark fast") changed the watermark fast to consider
> highatomic reserve. But it did not handle a negative value case which
> can be happened when reserved_highatomic pageblock is bigger than the
> actual free.
> 
> If watermark is considered as ok for the negative value, allocating
> contexts for order-0 will consume all free pages without direct reclaim,
> and finally free page may become depleted except highatomic free.
> 
> Then allocating contexts may fall into throttle_direct_reclaim. This
> symptom may easily happen in a system where wmark min is low and other
> reclaimers like kswapd does not make free pages quickly.
> 
> Handle the negative case by using MIN.
> 

Thanks, I added cc:stable to this.

RE: [PATCH v2] page_alloc: fix invalid watemark check on a negative value

[Jaewon Kim]

> 
> 
>--------- Original Message ---------
>Sender : Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>Date : 2022-07-26 03:37 (GMT+9)
>Title : Re: [PATCH v2] page_alloc: fix invalid watemark check on a negative value
> 
>On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 18:52:12 +0900 Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
>
>> There was a report that a task is waiting at the
>> throttle_direct_reclaim. The pgscan_direct_throttle in vmstat was
>> increasing.
>> 
>> This is a bug where zone_watermark_fast returns true even when the free
>> is very low. The commit f27ce0e14088 ("page_alloc: consider highatomic
>> reserve in watermark fast") changed the watermark fast to consider
>> highatomic reserve. But it did not handle a negative value case which
>> can be happened when reserved_highatomic pageblock is bigger than the
>> actual free.
>> 
>> If watermark is considered as ok for the negative value, allocating
>> contexts for order-0 will consume all free pages without direct reclaim,
>> and finally free page may become depleted except highatomic free.
>> 
>> Then allocating contexts may fall into throttle_direct_reclaim. This
>> symptom may easily happen in a system where wmark min is low and other
>> reclaimers like kswapd does not make free pages quickly.
>> 
>> Handle the negative case by using MIN.
>> 
>
>Thanks, I added cc:stable to this.
>

Sorry for your inconvenience.

Could you fix a typo by adding r to watermark on title

- page_alloc: fix invalid watemark check on a negative value
+ page_alloc: fix invalid watermark check on a negative value


I've appreciated it in advance.