On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 08:55:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 02-05-17 16:59:30, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> > On 28/04/2017 15:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > This is getting quite hairy. What is the expected page count of the
> > > hwpoison page?
>
> OK, so from the quick check of the hwpoison code it seems that the ref
> count will be > 1 (from get_hwpoison_page).
>
> > > I guess we would need to update the VM_BUG_ON in the
> > > memcg uncharge code to ignore the page count of hwpoison pages if it can
> > > be arbitrary.
> >
> > Based on the experiment I did, page count == 2 when isolate_lru_page()
> > succeeds, even in the case of a poisoned page.
>
> that would make some sense to me. The page should have been already
> unmapped therefore but memory_failure increases the ref count and 1 is
> for isolate_lru_page().
# sorry for late reply, I was on holidays last week...
Right, and the refcount taken for memory_failure is not freed after
memory_failure() returns. unpoison_memory() does free the refcount.
>
> > In my case I think this
> > is because the page is still used by the process which is calling madvise().
> >
> > I'm wondering if I'm looking at the right place. May be the poisoned
> > page should remain attach to the memory_cgroup until no one is using it.
> > In that case this means that something should be done when the page is
> > off-lined... I've to dig further here.
>
> No, AFAIU the page will not drop the reference count down to 0 in most
> cases. Maybe there are some scenarios where this can happen but I would
> expect that the poisoned page will be mapped and in use most of the time
> and won't drop down 0. And then we should really uncharge it because it
> will pin the memcg and make it unfreeable which doesn't seem to be what
> we want. So does the following work reasonable? Andi, Johannes, what do
> you think? I cannot say I would be really comfortable touching hwpoison
> code as I really do not understand the workflow. Maybe we want to move
> this uncharge down to memory_failure() right before we report success?
memory_failure() can be called for any types of page (including slab or
any kernel/driver pages), and the reported problem seems happen only on
in-use user pages, so uncharging in delete_from_lru_cache() as done below
looks better to me.
> ---
> From 8bf0791bcf35996a859b6d33fb5494e5b53de49d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 20:32:24 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] hwpoison, memcg: forcibly uncharge LRU pages
>
> Laurent Dufour has noticed that hwpoinsoned pages are kept charged. In
> his particular case he has hit a bad_page("page still charged to cgroup")
> when onlining a hwpoison page.
> While this looks like something that shouldn't
> happen in the first place because onlining hwpages and returning them to
> the page allocator makes only little sense it shows a real problem.
>
> hwpoison pages do not get freed usually so we do not uncharge them (at
> least not since 0a31bc97c80c ("mm: memcontrol: rewrite uncharge API")).
> Each charge pins memcg (since e8ea14cc6ead ("mm: memcontrol: take a css
> reference for each charged page")) as well and so the mem_cgroup and the
> associated state will never go away. Fix this leak by forcibly
> uncharging a LRU hwpoisoned page in delete_from_lru_cache(). We also
> have to tweak uncharge_list because it cannot rely on zero ref count
> for these pages.
>
> Fixes: 0a31bc97c80c ("mm: memcontrol: rewrite uncharge API")
> Reported-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 2 +-
> mm/memory-failure.c | 7 +++++++
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 16c556ac103d..4cf26059adb1 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -5527,7 +5527,7 @@ static void uncharge_list(struct list_head *page_list)
> next = page->lru.next;
>
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageLRU(page), page);
> - VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_count(page), page);
> + VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageHWPoison(page) && page_count(page), page);
>
> if (!page->mem_cgroup)
> continue;
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index 8a6bd3a9eb1e..4497d9619bb4 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -541,6 +541,13 @@ static int delete_from_lru_cache(struct page *p)
> */
> ClearPageActive(p);
> ClearPageUnevictable(p);
> +
> + /*
> + * Poisoned page might never drop its ref count to 0 so we have to
> + * uncharge it manually from its memcg.
> + */
> + mem_cgroup_uncharge(p);
> +
> /*
> * drop the page count elevated by isolate_lru_page()
> */
> --
> 2.11.0
>
> --
> 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
