lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: System freezes after OOM
From
Date
On 07/14/2016 04:59 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 14-07-16 10:00:16, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed 13-07-16 11:02:15, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c b/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c
>>>>> index 4f3cb3554944..0b806810efab 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c
>>>>> @@ -1392,11 +1392,14 @@ static void kcryptd_async_done(struct crypto_async_request *async_req,
>>>>> static void kcryptd_crypt(struct work_struct *work)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct dm_crypt_io *io = container_of(work, struct dm_crypt_io, work);
>>>>> + unsigned int pflags = current->flags;
>>>>>
>>>>> + current->flags |= PF_LESS_THROTTLE;
>>>>> if (bio_data_dir(io->base_bio) == READ)
>>>>> kcryptd_crypt_read_convert(io);
>>>>> else
>>>>> kcryptd_crypt_write_convert(io);
>>>>> + tsk_restore_flags(current, pflags, PF_LESS_THROTTLE);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> static void kcryptd_queue_crypt(struct dm_crypt_io *io)
>>>>
>>>> ^^^ That fixes just one specific case - but there may be other threads
>>>> doing mempool allocations in the device mapper subsystem - and you would
>>>> need to mark all of them.
>>>
>>> Now that I am thinking about it some more. Are there any mempool users
>>> which would actually want to be throttled? I would expect mempool users
>>> are necessary to push IO through and throttle them sounds like a bad
>>> decision in the first place but there might be other mempool users which
>>> could cause issues. Anyway how about setting PF_LESS_THROTTLE
>>> unconditionally inside mempool_alloc? Something like the following:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/mempool.c b/mm/mempool.c
>>> index 8f65464da5de..e21fb632983f 100644
>>> --- a/mm/mempool.c
>>> +++ b/mm/mempool.c
>>> @@ -310,7 +310,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mempool_resize);
>>> */
>>> void *mempool_alloc(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>>> {
>>> - void *element;
>>> + unsigned int pflags = current->flags;
>>> + void *element = NULL;
>>> unsigned long flags;
>>> wait_queue_t wait;
>>> gfp_t gfp_temp;
>>> @@ -327,6 +328,12 @@ void *mempool_alloc(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>>>
>>> gfp_temp = gfp_mask & ~(__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM|__GFP_IO);
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * Make sure that the allocation doesn't get throttled during the
>>> + * reclaim
>>> + */
>>> + if (gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp_mask))
>>> + current->flags |= PF_LESS_THROTTLE;
>>> repeat_alloc:
>>> if (likely(pool->curr_nr)) {
>>> /*
>>> @@ -339,7 +346,7 @@ void *mempool_alloc(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>>>
>>> element = pool->alloc(gfp_temp, pool->pool_data);
>>> if (likely(element != NULL))
>>> - return element;
>>> + goto out;
>>>
>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&pool->lock, flags);
>>> if (likely(pool->curr_nr)) {
>>> @@ -352,7 +359,7 @@ void *mempool_alloc(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>>> * for debugging.
>>> */
>>> kmemleak_update_trace(element);
>>> - return element;
>>> + goto out;
>>> }
>>>
>>> /*
>>> @@ -369,7 +376,7 @@ void *mempool_alloc(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>>> /* We must not sleep if !__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM */
>>> if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM)) {
>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pool->lock, flags);
>>> - return NULL;
>>> + goto out;
>>> }
>>>
>>> /* Let's wait for someone else to return an element to @pool */
>>> @@ -386,6 +393,10 @@ void *mempool_alloc(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>>>
>>> finish_wait(&pool->wait, &wait);
>>> goto repeat_alloc;
>>> +out:
>>> + if (gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp_mask))
>>> + tsk_restore_flags(current, pflags, PF_LESS_THROTTLE);
>>> + return element;
>>> }
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(mempool_alloc);
>>>
>>
>> But it needs other changes to honor the PF_LESS_THROTTLE flag:
>>
>> static int current_may_throttle(void)
>> {
>> return !(current->flags & PF_LESS_THROTTLE) ||
>> current->backing_dev_info == NULL ||
>> bdi_write_congested(current->backing_dev_info);
>> }
>> --- if you set PF_LESS_THROTTLE, current_may_throttle may still return
>> true if one of the other conditions is met.
>
> That is true but doesn't that mean that the device is congested and
> waiting a bit is the right thing to do?
>
>> shrink_zone_memcg calls throttle_vm_writeout without checking
>> PF_LESS_THROTTLE at all.
>
> Yes it doesn't call it because it relies on
> global_dirty_limits()->domain_dirty_limits() to DTRT. It will give the
> caller with PF_LESS_THROTTLE some boost wrt. all other writers.
>

Not sure it'll help but I had to apply following patch to your original
one. Without it it didn't work.

diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
index e248194..1616192 100644
--- a/mm/page-writeback.c
+++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
@@ -1940,11 +1940,23 @@ bool wb_over_bg_thresh(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
return false;
}

+static int current_may_throttle(void)
+{
+ if (current->flags & PF_LESS_THROTTLE)
+ return 0;
+
+ return current->backing_dev_info == NULL ||
+ bdi_write_congested(current->backing_dev_info);
+}
+
void throttle_vm_writeout(gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
unsigned long background_thresh;
unsigned long dirty_thresh;

+ if (!current_may_throttle())
+ return;
+
for ( ; ; ) {
global_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh);
dirty_thresh = hard_dirty_limit(&global_wb_domain,
dirty_thresh);
Regards Ondra

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-14 18:01    [W:0.095 / U:13.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site