(switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the bugzilla web interface). On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:42:57 +0000 bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=200651 > > Bug ID: 200651 > Summary: cgroups iptables-restor: vmalloc: allocation failure Thanks. Please do note the above request. > Product: Memory Management > Version: 2.5 > Kernel Version: 4.14 > Hardware: All > OS: Linux > Tree: Mainline > Status: NEW > Severity: normal > Priority: P1 > Component: Other > Assignee: akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Reporter: gnikolov@xxxxxxxxxxx > Regression: No > > Created attachment 277505 > --> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=277505&action=edit > iptables save > > After creating large number of cgroups and under memory pressure, iptables > command fails with following error: > > "iptables-restor: vmalloc: allocation failure, allocated 3047424 of 3465216 > bytes, mode:0x14010c0(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_NORETRY), nodemask=(null)" I'm not sure what the problem is here, apart from iptables being over-optimistic about vmalloc()'s abilities. Are cgroups having any impact on this, or is it simply vmalloc arena fragmentation, and the iptables code should use some data structure more sophisticated than a massive array? Maybe all that ccgroup metadata is contributing to the arena fragmentation, but that allocations will be small and the two systems should be able to live alongside, by being realistic about vmalloc. > System which is used to reproduce the bug is with 2 vcpus and 2GB of ram, but > it happens on more powerfull systems. > > Steps to reproduce: > > mkdir /cgroup > mount cgroup -t cgroup -omemory,pids,blkio,cpuacct /cgroup > for a in `seq 1 1000`; do for b in `seq 1 4` ; do mkdir -p > "/cgroup/user/$a/$b"; done; done > > Then in separate consoles > > cat /dev/vda > /dev/null > ./test > ./test > i=0;while sleep 0 ; do iptables-restore < iptables.save ; i=$(($i+1)); echo $i; > done > > Here is the source of "test" program and attached iptables.save. It happens > also with smaller iptables.save file. > > #include <stdio.h> > #include <stdlib.h> > > int main(void) { > > srand(time(NULL)); > int i = 0, j = 0, randnum=0; > int arr[6] = { 3072, 7168, 15360 , 31744, 64512, 130048}; > while(1) { > > for (i = 0; i < 6 ; i++) { > > int *ptr = (int*) malloc(arr[i] * 93); > > for(j = 0 ; j < arr[i] * 93 / sizeof(int); j++) { > *(ptr+j) = j+1; > } > > free(ptr); > } > } > } >
