Wei Wang wrote: > Here's a detailed analysis of the deadlock by Tetsuo Handa: > > In leak_balloon(), mutex_lock(&vb->balloon_lock) is called in order to > serialize against fill_balloon(). But in fill_balloon(), > alloc_page(GFP_HIGHUSER[_MOVABLE] | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NORETRY) is > called with vb->balloon_lock mutex held. Since GFP_HIGHUSER[_MOVABLE] > implies __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS, despite __GFP_NORETRY > is specified, this allocation attempt might indirectly depend on somebody > else's __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM memory allocation. And such indirect > __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM memory allocation might call leak_balloon() via > virtballoon_oom_notify() via blocking_notifier_call_chain() callback via > out_of_memory() when it reached __alloc_pages_may_oom() and held oom_lock > mutex. Since vb->balloon_lock mutex is already held by fill_balloon(), it > will cause OOM lockup. Thus, do not wait for vb->balloon_lock mutex if > leak_balloon() is called from out_of_memory(). Please drop "Thus, do not wait for vb->balloon_lock mutex if leak_balloon() is called from out_of_memory()." part. This is not what this patch will do. > > Thread1 Thread2 > fill_balloon() > takes a balloon_lock > balloon_page_enqueue() > alloc_page(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE) > direct reclaim (__GFP_FS context) takes a fs lock > waits for that fs lock alloc_page(GFP_NOFS) > __alloc_pages_may_oom() > takes the oom_lock > out_of_memory() > blocking_notifier_call_chain() > leak_balloon() > tries to take that > balloon_lock and deadlocks -- 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>
