On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 01:30:12PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 09:06:25AM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 8:58 AM Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > A task already in exit can get stuck trying to allocate pages, if its
> > > cgroup is at the memory.max limit, the cgroup is using zswap, but
> > > zswap writeback is enabled, and the remaining memory in the cgroup is
> > > not compressible.
> > >
> > > This seems like an unlikely confluence of events, but it can happen
> > > quite easily if a cgroup is OOM killed due to exceeding its memory.max
> > > limit, and all the tasks in the cgroup are trying to exit simultaneously.
> > >
> > > When this happens, it can sometimes take hours for tasks to exit,
> > > as they are all trying to squeeze things into zswap to bring the group's
> > > memory consumption below memory.max.
> > >
> > > Allowing these exiting programs to push some memory from their own
> > > cgroup into swap allows them to quickly bring the cgroup's memory
> > > consumption below memory.max, and exit in seconds rather than hours.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks for sending a v2.
> >
> > I still think maybe this needs to be fixed on the memcg side, at least
> > by not making exiting tasks try really hard to reclaim memory to the
> > point where this becomes a problem. IIUC there could be other reasons
> > why reclaim may take too long, but maybe not as pathological as this
> > case to be fair. I will let the memcg maintainers chime in for this.
> >
> > If there's a fundamental reason why this cannot be fixed on the memcg
> > side, I don't object to this change.
> >
> > Nhat, any objections on your end? I think your fleet workloads were
> > the first users of this interface. Does this break their expectations?
>
> Yes, I don't think we can do this, unfortunately :( There can be a
> variety of reasons for why a user might want to prohibit disk swap for
> a certain cgroup, and we can't assume it's okay to make exceptions.
>
> There might also not *be* any disk swap to overflow into after Nhat's
> virtual swap patches. Presumably zram would still have the issue too.
>
> So I'm also inclined to think this needs a reclaim/memcg-side fix. We
> have a somewhat tumultous history of policy in that space:
>
> commit 7775face207922ea62a4e96b9cd45abfdc7b9840
> Author: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue Mar 5 15:46:47 2019 -0800
>
> memcg: killed threads should not invoke memcg OOM killer
>
> allowed dying tasks to simply force all charges and move on. This
> turned out to be too aggressive; there were instances of exiting,
> uncontained memcg tasks causing global OOMs. This lead to that:
>
> commit a4ebf1b6ca1e011289677239a2a361fde4a88076
> Author: Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri Nov 5 13:38:09 2021 -0700
>
> memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the limit of dying tasks
>
> which reverted the bypass rather thoroughly. Now NO dying tasks, *not
> even OOM victims*, can force charges. I am not sure this is correct,
> either:
>
> If we return -ENOMEM to an OOM victim in a fault, the fault handler
> will re-trigger OOM, which will find the existing OOM victim and do
> nothing, then restart the fault. This is a memory deadlock. The page
> allocator gives OOM victims access to reserves for that reason.
>
> Actually, it looks even worse. For some reason we're not triggering
> OOM from dying tasks:
>
> ret = task_is_dying() || out_of_memory(&oc);
>
> Even though dying tasks are in no way privileged or allowed to exit
> expediently. Why shouldn't they trigger the OOM killer like anybody
> else trying to allocate memory?
>
> As it stands, it seems we have dying tasks getting trapped in an
> endless fault->reclaim cycle; with no access to the OOM killer and no
> access to reserves. Presumably this is what's going on here?
>
> I think we want something like this:
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 53db98d2c4a1..be6b6e72bde5 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -1596,11 +1596,7 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> if (mem_cgroup_margin(memcg) >= (1 << order))
> goto unlock;
>
> - /*
> - * A few threads which were not waiting at mutex_lock_killable() can
> - * fail to bail out. Therefore, check again after holding oom_lock.
> - */
> - ret = task_is_dying() || out_of_memory(&oc);
> + ret = out_of_memory(&oc);
I like the idea, but at first glance it might reintroduce the problem
fixed by 7775face2079 ("memcg: killed threads should not invoke memcg OOM killer").
