On 05/19/2017 01:51 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 17-05-17 10:11:35, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Commit e47483bca2cc ("mm, page_alloc: fix premature OOM when racing with cpuset
>> mems update") has fixed known recent regressions found by LTP's cpuset01
>> testcase. I have however found that by modifying the testcase to use per-vma
>> mempolicies via bind(2) instead of per-task mempolicies via set_mempolicy(2),
>> the premature OOM still happens and the issue is much older.
>>
>> The root of the problem is that the cpuset's mems_allowed and mempolicy's
>> nodemask can temporarily have no intersection, thus get_page_from_freelist()
>> cannot find any usable zone. The current semantic for empty intersection is to
>> ignore mempolicy's nodemask and honour cpuset restrictions. This is checked in
>> node_zonelist(), but the racy update can happen after we already passed the
>> check. Such races should be protected by the seqlock task->mems_allowed_seq,
>> but it doesn't work here, because 1) mpol_rebind_mm() does not happen under
>> seqlock for write, and doing so would lead to deadlock, as it takes mmap_sem
>> for write, while the allocation can have mmap_sem for read when it's taking the
>> seqlock for read. And 2) the seqlock cookie of callers of node_zonelist()
>> (alloc_pages_vma() and alloc_pages_current()) is different than the one of
>> __alloc_pages_slowpath(), so there's still a potential race window.
>>
>> This patch fixes the issue by having __alloc_pages_slowpath() check for empty
>> intersection of cpuset and ac->nodemask before OOM or allocation failure. If
>> it's indeed empty, the nodemask is ignored and allocation retried, which mimics
>> node_zonelist(). This works fine, because almost all callers of
>> __alloc_pages_nodemask are obtaining the nodemask via node_zonelist(). The only
>> exception is new_node_page() from hotplug, where the potential violation of
>> nodemask isn't an issue, as there's already a fallback allocation attempt
>> without any nodemask. If there's a future caller that needs to have its specific
>> nodemask honoured over task's cpuset restrictions, we'll have to e.g. add a gfp
>> flag for that.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
>
> Do we want this backported to the stable tree?
I'm not aware of any external report and the problem is there for a long
time.
> OK I do agree this makes some sense as a quick and easy to backport
> workaround.
It might not be that straightforward, the __alloc_pages* stuff has been
through a lot of changes recently, and e.g. the handling of
cpuset_mems_cookie has moved to __alloc_pages_slowpath() in the last
version or two.
So I'm not very enthusiastic about stable here.
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx?
Thanks!
>
>> ---
>> mm/page_alloc.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index beb2827fd5de..43aa767c3188 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -3661,6 +3661,39 @@ should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order,
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline bool
>> +check_retry_cpuset(int cpuset_mems_cookie, struct alloc_context *ac)
>> +{
>> + /*
>> + * It's possible that cpuset's mems_allowed and the nodemask from
>> + * mempolicy don't intersect. This should be normally dealt with by
>> + * policy_nodemask(), but it's possible to race with cpuset update in
>> + * such a way the check therein was true, and then it became false
>> + * before we got our cpuset_mems_cookie here.
>> + * This assumes that for all allocations, ac->nodemask can come only
>> + * from MPOL_BIND mempolicy (whose documented semantics is to be ignored
>> + * when it does not intersect with the cpuset restrictions) or the
>> + * caller can deal with a violated nodemask.
>> + */
>> + if (cpusets_enabled() && ac->nodemask &&
>> + !cpuset_nodemask_valid_mems_allowed(ac->nodemask)) {
>> + ac->nodemask = NULL;
>> + return true;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * When updating a task's mems_allowed or mempolicy nodemask, it is
>> + * possible to race with parallel threads in such a way that our
>> + * allocation can fail while the mask is being updated. If we are about
>> + * to fail, check if the cpuset changed during allocation and if so,
>> + * retry.
>> + */
>> + if (read_mems_allowed_retry(cpuset_mems_cookie))
>> + return true;
>> +
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline struct page *
>> __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>> struct alloc_context *ac)
>> @@ -3856,11 +3889,9 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>> &compaction_retries))
>> goto retry;
>>
>> - /*
>> - * It's possible we raced with cpuset update so the OOM would be
>> - * premature (see below the nopage: label for full explanation).
>> - */
>> - if (read_mems_allowed_retry(cpuset_mems_cookie))
>> +
>> + /* Deal with possible cpuset update races before we start OOM killing */
>> + if (check_retry_cpuset(cpuset_mems_cookie, ac))
>> goto retry_cpuset;
>>
>> /* Reclaim has failed us, start killing things */
>> @@ -3879,14 +3910,8 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>> }
>>
>> nopage:
>> - /*
>> - * When updating a task's mems_allowed or mempolicy nodemask, it is
>> - * possible to race with parallel threads in such a way that our
>> - * allocation can fail while the mask is being updated. If we are about
>> - * to fail, check if the cpuset changed during allocation and if so,
>> - * retry.
>> - */
>> - if (read_mems_allowed_retry(cpuset_mems_cookie))
>> + /* Deal with possible cpuset update races before we fail */
>> + if (check_retry_cpuset(cpuset_mems_cookie, ac))
>> goto retry_cpuset;
>>
>> /*
>> --
>> 2.12.2
>
--
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>
