On 07/26/2018 12:02 PM, Georgi Nikolov wrote:
> On 07/26/2018 11:48 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 07/26/2018 10:31 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> On 07/26/2018 10:03 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Thu 26-07-18 09:50:45, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>>> On 07/26/2018 09:42 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu 26-07-18 09:34:58, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/26/2018 09:26 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu 26-07-18 09:18:57, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07/25/2018 09:52 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is likely the kvmalloc() in xt_alloc_table_info(). Between 4.13 and
>>>>>>>>> 4.17 it shouldn't use __GFP_NORETRY, but looks like commit 0537250fdc6c
>>>>>>>>> ("netfilter: x_tables: make allocation less aggressive") was backported
>>>>>>>>> to 4.14. Removing __GFP_NORETRY might help here, but bring back other
>>>>>>>>> issues. Less than 4MB is not that much though, maybe find some "sane"
>>>>>>>>> limit and use __GFP_NORETRY only above that?
>>>>>>>> I have seen the same report via http://lkml.kernel.org/r/df6f501c-8546-1f55-40b1-7e3a8f54d872@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> and the reported confirmed that kvmalloc is not a real culprit
>>>>>>>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/d99a9598-808a-6968-4131-c3949b752004@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> Hmm but that was revert of eacd86ca3b03 ("net/netfilter/x_tables.c: use
>>>>>>> kvmalloc() in xt_alloc_table_info()") which was the 4.13 commit that
>>>>>>> removed __GFP_NORETRY (there's no __GFP_NORETRY under net/netfilter in
>>>>>>> v4.14). I assume it was reverted on top of vanilla v4.14 as there would
>>>>>>> be conflict on the stable with 0537250fdc6c backport. So what should be
>>>>>>> tested to be sure is either vanilla v4.14 without stable backports, or
>>>>>>> latest v4.14.y with revert of 0537250fdc6c.
>>>>>> But 0537250fdc6c simply restored the previous NORETRY behavior from
>>>>>> before eacd86ca3b03. So whatever causes these issues doesn't seem to be
>>>>>> directly related to the kvmalloc change. Or do I miss what you are
>>>>>> saying?
>>>>> I'm saying that although it's not a regression, as you say (the
>>>>> vmalloc() there was only for a few kernel versions called without
>>>>> __GFP_NORETRY), it's still possible that removing __GFP_NORETRY will fix
>>>>> the issue and thus we will rule out other possibilities.
>>>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/d99a9598-808a-6968-4131-c3949b752004@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> claims that reverting eacd86ca3b03 didn't really help.
>> Ah, I see, that mail thread references a different kernel bugzilla
>> #200639 which doesn't mention 4.14, but outright blames commit
>> eacd86ca3b03. Yet the alloc fail message contains __GFP_NORETRY, so I
>> still suspect the kernel also had 0537250fdc6c backport. Georgi can you
>> please clarify which exact kernel version had the alloc failures, and
>> how exactly you tested the revert (which version was the baseline for
>> revert). Thanks.
>>
>>> Of course not. eacd86ca3b03 *removed* __GFP_NORETRY, so the revert
>>> reintroduced it. I tried to explain it in the quoted part above starting
>>> with "Hmm but that was revert of eacd86ca3b03 ...". What I'm saying is
>>> that eacd86ca3b03 might have actually *fixed* (or rather prevented) this
>>> alloc failure, if there was not 0537250fdc6c and its 4.14 stable
>>> backport (the kernel bugzilla report says 4.14, I'm assuming new enough
>>> stable to contain 0537250fdc6c as the failure message contains
>>> __GFP_NORETRY).
>>>
>>> The mail you reference also says "seems that old version is masking
>>> errors", which confirms that we are indeed looking at the right
>>> vmalloc(), because eacd86ca3b03 also removed __GFP_NOWARN there (and
>>> thus the revert reintroduced it).
>>>
>>>
>
> Hello,
> Kernel that has allocation failures is 4.14.50.
> Here is the patch applied to this version which masks errors:
>
> --- net/netfilter/x_tables.c 2018-06-18 14:18:21.138347416 +0300
> +++ net/netfilter/x_tables.c 2018-07-26 11:58:01.721932962 +0300
> @@ -1059,9 +1059,19 @@
> * than shoot all processes down before realizing there is nothing
> * more to reclaim.
> */
> - info = kvmalloc(sz, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NORETRY);
> +/* info = kvmalloc(sz, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NORETRY);
> if (!info)
> return NULL;
> +*/
> +
> + if (sz <= (PAGE_SIZE << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER))
> + info = kmalloc(sz, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY);
> + if (!info) {
> + info = __vmalloc(sz, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY,
> + PAGE_KERNEL);
> + if (!info)
> + return NULL;
> + }
>
> memset(info, 0, sizeof(*info));
> info->size = size;
>
>
> I will try to reproduce it with only
>
> info = kvmalloc(sz, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Georgi Nikolov
>
Hello,
Without GFP_NORETRY problem disappears.
What is correct way to fix it.
- inside xt_alloc_table_info remove GFP_NORETRY from kvmalloc or add this flag only for sizes bigger than some threshold
- inside kvmalloc_node remove GFP_NORETRY from __vmalloc_node_flags_caller (i don't know if it honors this flag, or the problem is elsewhere)
Regards,
--
Georgi Nikolov
