Re: [patch 0/7] improve memcg oom killer robustness v2

["azurIt" <azurit@pobox.sk>]

> CC: "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@suse.cz>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "David Rientjes" <rientjes@google.com>, "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>, "KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 02:19:46PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 02:04:55PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 04:03:04PM +0200, azurIt wrote:
>> > > > CC: "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "David Rientjes" <rientjes@google.com>, "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>, "KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> > > >On Tue 17-09-13 13:15:35, azurIt wrote:
>> > > >[...]
>> > > >> Is something unusual on this stack?
>> > > >> 
>> > > >> 
>> > > >> [<ffffffff810d1a5e>] dump_header+0x7e/0x1e0
>> > > >> [<ffffffff810d195f>] ? find_lock_task_mm+0x2f/0x70
>> > > >> [<ffffffff810d1f25>] oom_kill_process+0x85/0x2a0
>> > > >> [<ffffffff810d24a8>] mem_cgroup_out_of_memory+0xa8/0xf0
>> > > >> [<ffffffff8110fb76>] mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize+0x2e6/0x310
>> > > >> [<ffffffff8110efc0>] ? mem_cgroup_uncharge_page+0x40/0x40
>> > > >> [<ffffffff810d2703>] pagefault_out_of_memory+0x13/0x130
>> > > >> [<ffffffff81026f6e>] mm_fault_error+0x9e/0x150
>> > > >> [<ffffffff81027424>] do_page_fault+0x404/0x490
>> > > >> [<ffffffff810f952c>] ? do_mmap_pgoff+0x3dc/0x430
>> > > >> [<ffffffff815cb87f>] page_fault+0x1f/0x30
>> > > >
>> > > >This is a regular memcg OOM killer. Which dumps messages about what is
>> > > >going to do. So no, nothing unusual, except if it was like that for ever
>> > > >which would mean that oom_kill_process is in the endless loop. But a
>> > > >single stack doesn't tell us much.
>> > > >
>> > > >Just a note. When you see something hogging a cpu and you are not sure
>> > > >whether it might be in an endless loop inside the kernel it makes sense
>> > > >to take several snaphosts of the stack trace and see if it changes. If
>> > > >not and the process is not sleeping (there is no schedule on the trace)
>> > > >then it might be looping somewhere waiting for Godot. If it is sleeping
>> > > >then it is slightly harder because you would have to identify what it is
>> > > >waiting for which requires to know a deeper context.
>> > > >-- 
>> > > >Michal Hocko
>> > > >SUSE Labs
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > I was finally able to get stack of problematic process :) I saved it two times from the same process, as Michal suggested (i wasn't able to take more). Here it is:
>> > > 
>> > > First (doesn't look very helpfull):
>> > > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > Second:
>> > > [<ffffffff810e17d1>] shrink_zone+0x481/0x650
>> > > [<ffffffff810e2ade>] do_try_to_free_pages+0xde/0x550
>> > > [<ffffffff810e310b>] try_to_free_pages+0x9b/0x120
>> > > [<ffffffff81148ccd>] free_more_memory+0x5d/0x60
>> > > [<ffffffff8114931d>] __getblk+0x14d/0x2c0
>> > > [<ffffffff8114c973>] __bread+0x13/0xc0
>> > > [<ffffffff811968a8>] ext3_get_branch+0x98/0x140
>> > > [<ffffffff81197497>] ext3_get_blocks_handle+0xd7/0xdc0
>> > > [<ffffffff81198244>] ext3_get_block+0xc4/0x120
>> > > [<ffffffff81155b8a>] do_mpage_readpage+0x38a/0x690
>> > > [<ffffffff81155ffb>] mpage_readpages+0xfb/0x160
>> > > [<ffffffff811972bd>] ext3_readpages+0x1d/0x20
>> > > [<ffffffff810d9345>] __do_page_cache_readahead+0x1c5/0x270
>> > > [<ffffffff810d9411>] ra_submit+0x21/0x30
>> > > [<ffffffff810cfb90>] filemap_fault+0x380/0x4f0
>> > > [<ffffffff810ef908>] __do_fault+0x78/0x5a0
>> > > [<ffffffff810f2b24>] handle_pte_fault+0x84/0x940
>> > > [<ffffffff810f354a>] handle_mm_fault+0x16a/0x320
>> > > [<ffffffff8102715b>] do_page_fault+0x13b/0x490
>> > > [<ffffffff815cb87f>] page_fault+0x1f/0x30
>> > > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
>> > 
>> > Ah, crap.  I'm sorry.  You even showed us this exact trace before in
>> > another context, but I did not fully realize what __getblk() is doing.
>> > 
>> > My subsequent patches made a charge attempt return -ENOMEM without
>> > reclaim if the memcg is under OOM.  And so the reason you have these
>> > reclaim livelocks is because __getblk never fails on -ENOMEM.  When
>> > the allocation returns -ENOMEM, it invokes GLOBAL DIRECT RECLAIM and
>> > tries again in an endless loop.  The memcg code would previously just
>> > loop inside the charge, reclaiming and killing, until the allocation
>> > succeeded.  But the new code relies on the fault stack being unwound
>> > to complete the OOM kill.  And since the stack is not unwound with
>> > __getblk() looping around the allocation there is no more memcg
>> > reclaim AND no memcg OOM kill, thus no chance of exiting.
>> > 
>> > That code is weird but really old, so it may take a while to evaluate
>> > all the callers as to whether this can be changed.
>> > 
>> > In the meantime, I would just allow __getblk to bypass the memcg limit
>> > when it still can't charge after reclaim.  Does the below get your
>> > machine back on track?
>> 
>> Scratch that.  The idea is reasonable but the implementation is not
>> fully cooked yet.  I'll send you an update.
>
>Here is an update.  Full replacement on top of 3.2 since we tried a
>dead end and it would be more painful to revert individual changes.
>
>The first bug you had was the same task entering OOM repeatedly and
>leaking the memcg reference, thus creating undeletable memcgs.  My
>fixup added a condition that if the task already set up an OOM context
>in that fault, another charge attempt would immediately return -ENOMEM
>without even trying reclaim anymore.  This dropped __getblk() into an
>endless loop of waking the flushers and performing global reclaim and
>memcg returning -ENOMEM regardless of free memory.
>
>The update now basically only changes this -ENOMEM to bypass, so that
>the memory is not accounted and the limit ignored.  OOM killed tasks
>are granted the same right, so that they can exit quickly and release
>memory.  Likewise, we want a task that hit the OOM condition also to
>finish the fault quickly so that it can invoke the OOM killer.
>
>Does the following work for you, azur?



Compiled fine, I wil install new kernel this night. Thank you!

azur

--
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>