[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH for 3.2.34] memcg: do not trigger OOM from add_to_page_cache_locked
On Tue, Feb 05 2013, Michal Hocko wrote:

> On Tue 05-02-13 15:49:47, azurIt wrote:
> [...]
>> Just to be sure - am i supposed to apply this two patches?
> 5-memcg-fix-1.patch is not complete. It doesn't contain the folloup I
> mentioned in a follow up email. Here is the full patch:
> ---
> From f2bf8437d5b9bb38a95a432bf39f32c584955171 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Michal Hocko <>
> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:47:57 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] memcg: do not trigger OOM from add_to_page_cache_locked
> memcg oom killer might deadlock if the process which falls down to
> mem_cgroup_handle_oom holds a lock which prevents other task to
> terminate because it is blocked on the very same lock.
> This can happen when a write system call needs to allocate a page but
> the allocation hits the memcg hard limit and there is nothing to reclaim
> (e.g. there is no swap or swap limit is hit as well and all cache pages
> have been reclaimed already) and the process selected by memcg OOM
> killer is blocked on i_mutex on the same inode (e.g. truncate it).
> Process A
> [<ffffffff811109b8>] do_truncate+0x58/0xa0 # takes i_mutex
> [<ffffffff81121c90>] do_last+0x250/0xa30
> [<ffffffff81122547>] path_openat+0xd7/0x440
> [<ffffffff811229c9>] do_filp_open+0x49/0xa0
> [<ffffffff8110f7d6>] do_sys_open+0x106/0x240
> [<ffffffff8110f950>] sys_open+0x20/0x30
> [<ffffffff815b5926>] system_call_fastpath+0x18/0x1d
> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
> Process B
> [<ffffffff8110a9c1>] mem_cgroup_handle_oom+0x241/0x3b0
> [<ffffffff8110b5ab>] T.1146+0x5ab/0x5c0
> [<ffffffff8110c22e>] mem_cgroup_cache_charge+0xbe/0xe0
> [<ffffffff810ca28c>] add_to_page_cache_locked+0x4c/0x140
> [<ffffffff810ca3a2>] add_to_page_cache_lru+0x22/0x50
> [<ffffffff810ca45b>] grab_cache_page_write_begin+0x8b/0xe0
> [<ffffffff81193a18>] ext3_write_begin+0x88/0x270
> [<ffffffff810c8fc6>] generic_file_buffered_write+0x116/0x290
> [<ffffffff810cb3cc>] __generic_file_aio_write+0x27c/0x480
> [<ffffffff810cb646>] generic_file_aio_write+0x76/0xf0 # takes ->i_mutex
> [<ffffffff8111156a>] do_sync_write+0xea/0x130
> [<ffffffff81112183>] vfs_write+0xf3/0x1f0
> [<ffffffff81112381>] sys_write+0x51/0x90
> [<ffffffff815b5926>] system_call_fastpath+0x18/0x1d
> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff

It looks like grab_cache_page_write_begin() passes __GFP_FS into
__page_cache_alloc() and mem_cgroup_cache_charge(). Which makes me
think that this deadlock is also possible in the page allocator even
before getting to add_to_page_cache_lru. no?

Can callers holding fs resources (e.g. i_mutex) pass __GFP_FS into the
page allocator? If __GFP_FS was avoided, then I think memcg user page
charging would need a !__GFP_FS check to avoid invoking oom killer, but
at least then we'd avoid both deadlocks and cover both page allocation
and memcg page charging in similar fashion.

Example from memcg_charge_kmem:
may_oom = (gfp & __GFP_FS) && !(gfp & __GFP_NORETRY);

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-05 18:46    [W:0.198 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site