From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
To: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Hirokazu Takahashi <taka@valinux.co.jp>,
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@valinux.co.jp>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: [PATCH 13/15] memcg: fix mem_cgroup_move_lists locking
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:49:04 +0000 (GMT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802252347160.27067@blonde.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802252327490.27067@blonde.site>
Ever since the VM_BUG_ON(page_get_page_cgroup(page)) (now Bad page state)
went into page freeing, I've hit it from time to time in testing on some
machines, sometimes only after many days. Recently found a machine which
could usually produce it within a few hours, which got me there at last.
The culprit is mem_cgroup_move_lists, whose locking is inadequate; and
the arrangement of structures was such that you got page_cgroups from
the lru list neatly put on to SLUB's freelist. Kamezawa-san identified
the same hole independently.
The main problem was that it was missing the lock_page_cgroup it needs
to safely page_get_page_cgroup; but it's tricky to go beyond that too,
and I couldn't do it with SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU as I'd expected.
See the code for comments on the constraints.
This patch immediately gets replaced by a simpler one from Hirokazu-san;
but is it just foolish pride that tells me to put this one on record,
in case we need to come back to it later?
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
---
mm/memcontrol.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--- memcg12/mm/memcontrol.c 2008-02-25 14:06:21.000000000 +0000
+++ memcg13/mm/memcontrol.c 2008-02-25 14:06:25.000000000 +0000
@@ -277,6 +277,11 @@ static void lock_page_cgroup(struct page
bit_spin_lock(PAGE_CGROUP_LOCK_BIT, &page->page_cgroup);
}
+static int try_lock_page_cgroup(struct page *page)
+{
+ return bit_spin_trylock(PAGE_CGROUP_LOCK_BIT, &page->page_cgroup);
+}
+
static void unlock_page_cgroup(struct page *page)
{
bit_spin_unlock(PAGE_CGROUP_LOCK_BIT, &page->page_cgroup);
@@ -348,17 +353,49 @@ int task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struc
void mem_cgroup_move_lists(struct page *page, bool active)
{
struct page_cgroup *pc;
+ struct mem_cgroup *mem;
struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz;
unsigned long flags;
- pc = page_get_page_cgroup(page);
- if (!pc)
+ /*
+ * We cannot lock_page_cgroup while holding zone's lru_lock,
+ * because other holders of lock_page_cgroup can be interrupted
+ * with an attempt to rotate_reclaimable_page. But we cannot
+ * safely get to page_cgroup without it, so just try_lock it:
+ * mem_cgroup_isolate_pages allows for page left on wrong list.
+ */
+ if (!try_lock_page_cgroup(page))
return;
- mz = page_cgroup_zoneinfo(pc);
- spin_lock_irqsave(&mz->lru_lock, flags);
- __mem_cgroup_move_lists(pc, active);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mz->lru_lock, flags);
+ /*
+ * Now page_cgroup is stable, but we cannot acquire mz->lru_lock
+ * while holding it, because mem_cgroup_force_empty_list does the
+ * reverse. Get a hold on the mem_cgroup before unlocking, so that
+ * the zoneinfo remains stable, then take mz->lru_lock; then check
+ * that page still points to pc and pc (even if freed and reassigned
+ * to that same page meanwhile) still points to the same mem_cgroup.
+ * Then we know mz still points to the right spinlock, so it's safe
+ * to move_lists (page->page_cgroup might be reset while we do so, but
+ * that doesn't matter: pc->page is stable till we drop mz->lru_lock).
+ * We're being a little naughty not to try_lock_page_cgroup again
+ * inside there, but we are safe, aren't we? Aren't we? Whistle...
+ */
+ pc = page_get_page_cgroup(page);
+ if (pc) {
+ mem = pc->mem_cgroup;
+ mz = page_cgroup_zoneinfo(pc);
+ css_get(&mem->css);
+
+ unlock_page_cgroup(page);
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&mz->lru_lock, flags);
+ if (page_get_page_cgroup(page) == pc && pc->mem_cgroup == mem)
+ __mem_cgroup_move_lists(pc, active);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mz->lru_lock, flags);
+
+ css_put(&mem->css);
+ } else
+ unlock_page_cgroup(page);
}
/*
--
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:[~2008-02-25 23:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-25 23:34 [PATCH 00/15] memcg: fixes and cleanups Hugh Dickins
2008-02-25 23:35 ` [PATCH 01/15] memcg: mm_match_cgroup not vm_match_cgroup Hugh Dickins
2008-02-26 0:39 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-26 3:27 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-02-26 2:41 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-26 23:46 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-02-28 3:47 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-28 7:19 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-28 7:26 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-28 8:08 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-02-25 23:36 ` [PATCH 02/15] memcg: move_lists on page not page_cgroup Hugh Dickins
2008-02-26 15:52 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-26 23:45 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-02-25 23:37 ` [PATCH 03/15] memcg: page_cache_release not __free_page Hugh Dickins
2008-02-26 16:02 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-26 23:38 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-02-25 23:38 ` [PATCH 04/15] memcg: when do_swap's do_wp_page fails Hugh Dickins
2008-02-26 23:41 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-02-27 5:08 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-27 12:57 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-02-25 23:39 ` [PATCH 05/15] memcg: fix VM_BUG_ON from page migration Hugh Dickins
2008-02-26 1:30 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-02-27 5:52 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-27 13:23 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-02-27 13:43 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-25 23:40 ` [PATCH 06/15] memcg: bad page if page_cgroup when free Hugh Dickins
2008-02-26 23:44 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-02-27 8:38 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-25 23:41 ` [PATCH 07/15] memcg: mem_cgroup_charge never NULL Hugh Dickins
2008-02-26 1:32 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-02-27 8:42 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-25 23:42 ` [PATCH 08/15] memcg: remove mem_cgroup_uncharge Hugh Dickins
2008-02-26 1:34 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-02-28 18:22 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-25 23:43 ` [PATCH 09/15] memcg: memcontrol whitespace cleanups Hugh Dickins
2008-02-25 23:44 ` [PATCH 10/15] memcg: memcontrol uninlined and static Hugh Dickins
2008-02-26 1:36 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-02-25 23:46 ` [PATCH 11/15] memcg: remove clear_page_cgroup and atomics Hugh Dickins
2008-02-26 1:38 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-02-25 23:47 ` [PATCH 12/15] memcg: css_put after remove_list Hugh Dickins
2008-02-26 1:39 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-02-25 23:49 ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
2008-02-26 1:43 ` [PATCH 13/15] memcg: fix mem_cgroup_move_lists locking KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-02-26 2:56 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-02-25 23:50 ` [PATCH 14/15] memcg: simplify force_empty and move_lists Hugh Dickins, Hirokazu Takahashi
2008-02-26 1:48 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-02-26 3:23 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-02-26 4:09 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-02-25 23:51 ` [PATCH 15/15] memcg: fix oops on NULL lru list Hugh Dickins
2008-02-26 1:26 ` [PATCH 00/15] memcg: fixes and cleanups KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
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=Pine.LNX.4.64.0802252347160.27067@blonde.site \
--to=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=taka@valinux.co.jp \
--cc=yamamoto@valinux.co.jp \
/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