Re: mm: memcontrol: rewrite uncharge API: problems

[Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>]

On Thu, 3 Jul 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:54:36PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Could you give the following patch a spin?  I put it in the mmots
> > > > stack on top of mm-memcontrol-rewrite-charge-api-fix-shmem_unuse-fix.
> > > 
> > > I'm just with the laptop until this evening.  I slapped it on top of
> > > my 3.16-rc2-mm1 plus fixes (but obviously minus my memcg_batch one
> > > - which incidentally continues to run without crashing on the G5),
> > > and it quickly gave me this lockdep splat, which doesn't look very
> > > different from the one before.
> > > 
> > > I see there's now an -rc3-mm1, I'll try it out on that in half an
> > > hour... but unless I send word otherwise, assume that's the same.
> > 
> > Yes, I get that lockdep report each time on -rc3-mm1 + your patch.
> 
> There are two instances where I missed to make &rtpz->lock IRQ-safe:
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 91b621846e10..bbaa3f4cf4db 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -3919,7 +3919,7 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(struct zone *zone, int order,
>  						    gfp_mask, &nr_scanned);
>  		nr_reclaimed += reclaimed;
>  		*total_scanned += nr_scanned;
> -		spin_lock(&mctz->lock);
> +		spin_lock_irq(&mctz->lock);
>  
>  		/*
>  		 * If we failed to reclaim anything from this memory cgroup
> @@ -3959,7 +3959,7 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(struct zone *zone, int order,
>  		 */
>  		/* If excess == 0, no tree ops */
>  		__mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(mz, mctz, excess);
> -		spin_unlock(&mctz->lock);
> +		spin_unlock_irq(&mctz->lock);
>  		css_put(&mz->memcg->css);
>  		loop++;
>  		/*

Thanks, that fixes my lockdep reports.

> 
> That should make it complete - but the IRQ toggling costs are fairly
> high so I'm rewriting the batching code to use the page lists that
> most uncharges have anyway, and then batch the no-IRQ sections.

Sounds good.

> 
> > I also twice got a flurry of res_counter.c:28 underflow warnings.
> > Hmm, 62 of them each time (I was checking for a number near 512,
> > which would suggest a THP/4k confusion, but no).  The majority
> > of them coming from mem_cgroup_reparent_charges.
> 
> I haven't seen these yet.  But the location makes sense: if there are
> any imbalances they'll be noticed during a group's final uncharges.

I haven't seen any since adding your patch above, though I don't see
how it could affect them.  Of course I'll let you know if they reappear.

> 
> > But the laptop stayed up fine (for two hours before I had to stop
> > it), and the G5 has run fine with that load for 16 hours now, no
> > problems with release_pages, and not even a res_counter.c:28 (but
> > I don't use lockdep on it).
> 
> Great!
> 
> > The x86 workstation ran fine for 4.5 hours, then hit some deadlock
> > which I doubt had any connection to your changes: looked more like
> > a jbd2 transaction was failing to complete (which, with me trying
> > ext4 on loop on tmpfs, might be more my problem than anyone else's).
> > 
> > Oh, but nearly forgot, I did an earlier run on the laptop last night,
> > which crashed within minutes on
> > 
> > VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!(pc->flags & PCG_MEM))
> > mm/memcontrol.c:6680!
> > page had count 1 mapcount 0 mapping anon index 0x196
> > flags locked uptodate reclaim swapbacked, pcflags 1, memcg not root
> > mem_cgroup_migrate < move_to_new_page < migrate_pages < compact_zone <
> > compact_zone_order < try_to_compact_pages < __alloc_pages_direct_compact <
> > __alloc_pages_nodemask < alloc_pages_vma < do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page <
> > handle_mm_fault < __do_page_fault

I got it again on the laptop, after 7 hours.

> 
> Haven't seen that one yet, either.  The only way I can see this happen
> is when the same page gets selected for migration twice in a row.
> Maybe a race with putback, where it gets added to the LRU but isolated
> by compaction before putback drops the refcount - will verify that.

Yes.  This is one of those cases where I read a mail too quickly,
misunderstand it, set it aside, plough through the source files,
pace around thinking, finally come up with a hypothesis, go back to
answer the mail, and find I've arrived at the same conclusion as you.

Not verified in any way, but yes, mem_cgroup_migrate() looks anomalous
to me, in clearing PCG_MEM and PGC_MEMSW but leaving PCG_USED.  Once
that old page is put back on LRU for freeing, it could get isolated
by another migrator, who discovers the anomalous state in its own
mem_cgroup_migrate().

mem_cgroup_migrate() should just set pc->flags = 0, shouldn't it?

But is there any point to PCG_USED now?  Couldn't PageCgroupUsed
(or better, PageCgroupCharged) just test PCG_MEM and PCG_MEMSW?
Which should be low bits of pc->mem_cgroup, halving the array.

Hugh

--
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>