[Let's add Tejun] On Sat 04-03-17 10:25:12, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 02:39:51PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 03-03-17 19:48:30, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > Continued from http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201702261530.JDD56292.OFOLFHQtVMJSOF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx : > > > > > > While I was testing a patch which avoids infinite too_many_isolated() loop in > > > shrink_inactive_list(), I hit a lockup where WQ_MEM_RECLAIM threads got stuck > > > waiting for memory allocation. I guess that we overlooked a basic thing about > > > WQ_MEM_RECLAIM. > > > > > > WQ_MEM_RECLAIM helps only when the cause of failing to complete > > > a work item is lack of "struct task_struct" to run that work item, for > > > WQ_MEM_RECLAIM preallocates one "struct task_struct" so that the workqueue > > > will not be blocked waiting for memory allocation for "struct task_struct". > > > > > > WQ_MEM_RECLAIM does not help when "struct task_struct" running that work > > > item is blocked waiting for memory allocation (or is indirectly blocked > > > on a lock where the owner of that lock is blocked waiting for memory > > > allocation). That is, WQ_MEM_RECLAIM users must guarantee forward progress > > > if memory allocation (including indirect memory allocation via > > > locks/completions) is needed. > > > > > > In XFS, "xfs_mru_cache", "xfs-buf/%s", "xfs-data/%s", "xfs-conv/%s", "xfs-cil/%s", > > > "xfs-reclaim/%s", "xfs-log/%s", "xfs-eofblocks/%s", "xfsalloc" and "xfsdiscard" > > > workqueues are used, and all but "xfsdiscard" are WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueues. > > > > > > What I observed is at http://I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/tmp/serial-20170226.txt.xz . > > > I guess that the key of this lockup is that xfs-data/sda1 and xfs-eofblocks/s > > > workqueues (which are RESCUER) got stuck waiting for memory allocation. > > > > If those workers are really required for a further progress of the > > memory reclaim then they shouldn't block on allocation at all and either > > use pre allocated memory or use PF_MEMALLOC in case there is a guarantee > > that only very limited amount of memory is allocated from that context > > and there will be at least the same amount of memory freed as a result > > in a reasonable time. > > > > This is something for xfs people to answer though. Please note that I > > didn't really have time to look through the below traces so the above > > note is rather generic. It would be really helpful if you could provide > > a high level dependency chains to see why those rescuers are necessary > > for the forward progress because it is really easy to get lost in so > > many traces. > > Data IO completion is required to make progress to free memory. IO > completion is done via work queues, so they need rescuer threads to > ensure work can be run. > > IO completion can require transactions to run. Transactions require > memory allocation. Freeing memory therefore requires IO completion > to have access to memory reserves if it's occurring from rescuer > threads to allow progress to be made. > > That means metadata IO completion require rescuer threads, because > data IO completion can be dependent on metadata buffers being > available. e.g. reserving space in the log for the transaction can > require waiting on metadata IO dispatch and completion. Hence the > buffer IO completion workqueues need rescuer threads. > > Transactions can also require log forces and flushes to occur, which > means they require the log workqueues (both the CIL flush and IO > completion workqueues) to make progress. Log flushes also require > both IO and memory allocation to make progress to complete. Again, > this means the log workqueues need rescuer threads. It also needs > the log workqueues to be high priority so that they can make > progress before IO completion work that is dependent on > transactions making progress are processed. > > IOWs, pretty much all the XFS workqueues are involved in memory > reclaim in one way or another. > > The real problem here is that the XFS code has /no idea/ of what > workqueue context it is operating in - the fact it is in a rescuer > thread is completely hidden from the executing context. It seems to > me that the workqueue infrastructure's responsibility to tell memory > reclaim that the rescuer thread needs special access to the memory > reserves to allow the work it is running to allow forwards progress > to be made. i.e. setting PF_MEMALLOC on the rescuer thread or > something similar... I am not sure an automatic access to memory reserves from the rescuer context is safe. This sounds too easy to break (read consume all the reserves) - note that we have almost 200 users of WQ_MEM_RECLAIM and chances are some of them will not be careful with the memory allocations. I agree it would be helpful to know that the current item runs from the rescuer context, though. In such a case the implementation can do what ever it takes to make a forward progress. If that is using __GFP_MEMALLOC then be it but it would be at least explicit and well thought through (I hope). Tejun, would it be possible/reasonable to add current_is_wq_rescuer() API? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
