On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
> By using perf top, qlist_move_cache occupies 100% cpu did really
> happen in my environment yesterday, or I
> won't notice the kasan code.
> Currently I have difficulty to let it reappear because the frontend
> guy modified some user mode code.
> I can repeat again and again now is
> kgdb_breakpoint () at kernel/debug/debug_core.c:1073
> 1073 wmb(); /* Sync point after breakpoint */
> (gdb) p quarantine_batch_size
> $1 = 3601946
> And by instrument code, maximum
> global_quarantine[quarantine_tail].bytes reached is 6618208.
On second thought, size does not matter too much because there can be
large objects. Quarantine always quantize by objects, we can't part of
an object into one batch, and another part of the object into another
object. But it's not a problem, because overhead per objects is O(1).
We can push a single 4MB object and overflow target size by 4MB and
that will be fine.
Either way, 6MB is not terribly much too. Should take milliseconds to process.
> I do think drain quarantine right in quarantine_put is a better
> place to drain because cache_free is fine in
> that context. I am willing do it if you think it is convenient :-)
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Imagine all of the QUARANTINE_BATCHES elements of
>>> global_quarantine array is of size 4MB + 1MB, now a new call
>>> to quarantine_put is invoked, one of the element will be of size 4MB +
>>> 1MB + 1MB, so on and on.
>>
>>
>> I see what you mean. Does it really happen in your case? What's the
>> maximum batch size that you get during your workload?
>>
>> I always wondered why don't we drain quarantine right in
>> quarantine_put when we overflow it? We already take quarantine_lock
>> and calling cache_free should be fine in that context, since user code
>> already does that.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> Please take a look at function quarantine_put, I don't think following
>>>>> code will limit the batch size below quarantine_batch_size. It only advance
>>>>> quarantine_tail after qlist_move_all.
>>>>>
>>>>> qlist_move_all(q, &temp);
>>>>>
>>>>> spin_lock(&quarantine_lock);
>>>>> WRITE_ONCE(quarantine_size, quarantine_size + temp.bytes);
>>>>> qlist_move_all(&temp, &global_quarantine[quarantine_tail]);
>>>>> if (global_quarantine[quarantine_tail].bytes >=
>>>>> READ_ONCE(quarantine_batch_size)) {
>>>>> int new_tail;
>>>>>
>>>>> new_tail = quarantine_tail + 1;
>>>>> if (new_tail == QUARANTINE_BATCHES)
>>>>> new_tail = 0;
>>>>> if (new_tail != quarantine_head)
>>>>> quarantine_tail = new_tail;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As far as I see this code can exceed global quarantine batch size by
>>>> at most 1 per-cpu batch. Per-cpu batch is caped at 1MB. So max global
>>>> batch size will be 4MB+1MB. Which does not radically change situation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks for reviewing
>>>>>>> My machine has 128G of RAM, and runs many KVM virtual machines.
>>>>>>> libvirtd always
>>>>>>> report "internal error: received hangup / error event on socket" under
>>>>>>> heavy memory load.
>>>>>>> Then I use perf top -g, qlist_move_cache consumes 100% cpu for
>>>>>>> several minutes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For 128GB of RAM, batch size is 4MB. Processing such batch should not
>>>>>> take more than few ms. So I am still struggling to understand how/why
>>>>>> your change helps and why there are issues in the first place...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> When there are huge amount of quarantined cache allocates in system,
>>>>>>>>> number of entries in global_quarantine[i] will be great. Meanwhile,
>>>>>>>>> there is no relax in while loop in function qlist_move_cache which
>>>>>>>>> hold quarantine_lock. As a result, some userspace programs for example
>>>>>>>>> libvirt will complain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The QUARANTINE_BATCHES thing was supposed to fix this problem, see
>>>>>>>> quarantine_remove_cache() function.
>>>>>>>> What is the amount of RAM and number of CPUs in your system?
>>>>>>>> If system has 4GB of RAM, quarantine size is 128MB and that's split
>>>>>>>> into 1024 batches. Batch size is 128KB. Even if that's filled with the
>>>>>>>> smallest objects of size 32, that's only 4K objects. And there is a
>>>>>>>> cond_resched() between processing of every batch.
>>>>>>>> I don't understand why it causes problems in your setup. We use KASAN
>>>>>>>> extremely heavily on hundreds of machines 24x7 and we have not seen
>>>>>>>> any single report from this code...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:04 PM, <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> From: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This patch fix livelock by conditionally release cpu to let others
>>>>>>>>>> has a chance to run.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tested on x86_64.
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> mm/kasan/quarantine.c | 12 +++++++++++-
>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/kasan/quarantine.c b/mm/kasan/quarantine.c
>>>>>>>>>> index 3a8ddf8..33eeff4 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/mm/kasan/quarantine.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/kasan/quarantine.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -265,10 +265,13 @@ static void qlist_move_cache(struct qlist_head *from,
>>>>>>>>>> struct kmem_cache *cache)
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>> struct qlist_node *curr;
>>>>>>>>>> + struct qlist_head tmp_head;
>>>>>>>>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> if (unlikely(qlist_empty(from)))
>>>>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> + qlist_init(&tmp_head);
>>>>>>>>>> curr = from->head;
>>>>>>>>>> qlist_init(from);
>>>>>>>>>> while (curr) {
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -278,10 +281,17 @@ static void qlist_move_cache(struct qlist_head *from,
>>>>>>>>>> if (obj_cache == cache)
>>>>>>>>>> qlist_put(to, curr, obj_cache->size);
>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>> - qlist_put(from, curr, obj_cache->size);
>>>>>>>>>> + qlist_put(&tmp_head, curr, obj_cache->size);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> curr = next;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + if (need_resched()) {
>>>>>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&quarantine_lock, flags);
>>>>>>>>>> + cond_resched();
>>>>>>>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&quarantine_lock, flags);
>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>> + qlist_move_all(&tmp_head, from);
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> static void per_cpu_remove_cache(void *arg)
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 2.1.4
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kasan-dev" group.
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kasan-dev+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to kasan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kasan-dev/CAABZP2zEup53ZcNKOEUEMx_aRMLONZdYCLd7s5J4DLTccPxC-A%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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>
