Hi Ying,
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 03:37:04PM -0700, Ying Han wrote:
> We recently added the change in global background reclaim which counts the
> return value of soft_limit reclaim. Now this patch adds the similar logic
> on global direct reclaim.
>
> We should skip scanning global LRU on shrink_zone if soft_limit reclaim does
> enough work. This is the first step where we start with counting the nr_scanned
> and nr_reclaimed from soft_limit reclaim into global scan_control.
>
> The patch is based on mmotm-04-14 and i triggered kernel BUG at mm/vmscan.c:1058!
Could you tell me exact patches?
mmtom-04-14 + just 2 patch of this? or + something?
These day, You and Kame produces many patches.
Do I have to apply something of them?
>
> [ 938.242033] kernel BUG at mm/vmscan.c:1058!
> [ 938.242033] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP·
> [ 938.242033] last sysfs file: /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/device
> [ 938.242033] Pid: 546, comm: kswapd0 Tainted: G W 2.6.39-smp-direct_reclaim
> [ 938.242033] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff810ed174>] [<ffffffff810ed174>] isolate_pages_global+0x18c/0x34f
> [ 938.242033] RSP: 0018:ffff88082f83bb50 EFLAGS: 00010082
> [ 938.242033] RAX: 00000000ffffffea RBX: ffff88082f83bc90 RCX: 0000000000000401
> [ 938.242033] RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffffea001ca653e8
> [ 938.242033] RBP: ffff88082f83bc20 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffff88085ffb6e00
> [ 938.242033] R10: ffff88085ffb73d0 R11: ffff88085ffb6e00 R12: ffff88085ffb6e00
> [ 938.242033] R13: ffffea001ca65410 R14: 0000000000000001 R15: ffffea001ca653e8
> [ 938.242033] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88085fd00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [ 938.242033] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
> [ 938.242033] CR2: 00007f5c3405c320 CR3: 0000000001803000 CR4: 00000000000006e0
> [ 938.242033] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> [ 938.242033] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> [ 938.242033] Process kswapd0 (pid: 546, threadinfo ffff88082f83a000, task ffff88082fe52080)
> [ 938.242033] Stack:
> [ 938.242033] ffff88085ffb6e00 ffffea0000000002 0000000000000021 0000000000000000
> [ 938.242033] 0000000000000000 ffff88082f83bcb8 ffffea00108eec80 ffffea00108eecb8
> [ 938.242033] ffffea00108eecf0 0000000000000004 fffffffffffffffc 0000000000000020
> [ 938.242033] Call Trace:
> [ 938.242033] [<ffffffff810ee8a5>] shrink_inactive_list+0x185/0x418
> [ 938.242033] [<ffffffff810366cc>] ? __switch_to+0xea/0x212
> [ 938.242033] [<ffffffff810e8b35>] ? determine_dirtyable_memory+0x1a/0x2c
> [ 938.242033] [<ffffffff810ef19b>] shrink_zone+0x380/0x44d
> [ 938.242033] [<ffffffff810e5188>] ? zone_watermark_ok_safe+0xa1/0xae
> [ 938.242033] [<ffffffff810efbd8>] kswapd+0x41b/0x76b
> [ 938.242033] [<ffffffff810ef7bd>] ? zone_reclaim+0x2fb/0x2fb
> [ 938.242033] [<ffffffff81088569>] kthread+0x82/0x8a
> [ 938.242033] [<ffffffff8141b0d4>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> [ 938.242033] [<ffffffff810884e7>] ? kthread_worker_fn+0x112/0x112
> [ 938.242033] [<ffffffff8141b0d0>] ? gs_change+0xb/0xb
>
It seems there is active page in inactive list.
As I look deactivate_page, lru_deactivate_fn clears PageActive before
add_page_to_lru_list and it should be protected by zone->lru_lock.
In addiion, PageLRU would protect with race with isolation functions.
Hmm, I don't have any clue now.
Is it reproducible easily?
Could you apply below debugging patch and report the result?
diff --git a/include/linux/mm_inline.h b/include/linux/mm_inline.h
index 8f7d247..f39b53a 100644
--- a/include/linux/mm_inline.h
+++ b/include/linux/mm_inline.h
@@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ static inline void
__add_page_to_lru_list(struct zone *zone, struct page *page, enum lru_list l,
struct list_head *head)
{
+ VM_BUG_ON(PageActive(page) && (
+ l == LRU_INACTIVE_ANON || l == LRU_INACTIVE_FILE));
list_add(&page->lru, head);
__mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_LRU_BASE + l, hpage_nr_pages(page));
mem_cgroup_add_lru_list(page, l);
diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
index a83ec5a..5f7c3c8 100644
--- a/mm/swap.c
+++ b/mm/swap.c
@@ -454,6 +454,8 @@ static void lru_deactivate_fn(struct page *page, void *arg)
* The page's writeback ends up during pagevec
* We moves tha page into tail of inactive.
*/
+ VM_BUG_ON(PageActive(page) && (
+ lru == LRU_INACTIVE_ANON || lru == LRU_INACTIVE_FILE));
list_move_tail(&page->lru, &zone->lru[lru].list);
mem_cgroup_rotate_reclaimable_page(page);
__count_vm_event(PGROTATED);
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index b3a569f..3415896 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -963,7 +963,7 @@ int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, int mode, int file)
/* Only take pages on the LRU. */
if (!PageLRU(page))
- return ret;
+ return 1;
/*
* When checking the active state, we need to be sure we are
@@ -971,10 +971,10 @@ int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, int mode, int file)
* of each.
*/
if (mode != ISOLATE_BOTH && (!PageActive(page) != !mode))
- return ret;
+ return 2;
if (mode != ISOLATE_BOTH && page_is_file_cache(page) != file)
- return ret;
+ return 3;
/*
* When this function is being called for lumpy reclaim, we
@@ -982,7 +982,7 @@ int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, int mode, int file)
* unevictable; only give shrink_page_list evictable pages.
*/
if (PageUnevictable(page))
- return ret;
+ return 4;
ret = -EBUSY;
@@ -1035,13 +1035,14 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
unsigned long end_pfn;
unsigned long page_pfn;
int zone_id;
+ int ret;
page = lru_to_page(src);
prefetchw_prev_lru_page(page, src, flags);
VM_BUG_ON(!PageLRU(page));
- switch (__isolate_lru_page(page, mode, file)) {
+ switch (ret = __isolate_lru_page(page, mode, file)) {
case 0:
list_move(&page->lru, dst);
mem_cgroup_del_lru(page);
@@ -1055,6 +1056,7 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
continue;
default:
+ printk(KERN_ERR "ret %d\n", ret);
BUG();
}
> Thank you Minchan for the pointer. I reverted the following commit and I
> haven't seen the problem with the same operation. I haven't looked deeply
> on the patch yet, but figured it would be a good idea to post the dump.
> The dump looks not directly related to this patchset, but ppl can use it to
> reproduce the problem.
I tested the patch with rsync + fadvise several times
in my machine(2P, 2G DRAM) but I didn't have ever seen the BUG.
But I didn't test it in memcg. As I look dump, it seems not related to memcg.
Anyway, I tried it to reproduce it in my machine.
Maybe I will start testing after next week. Sorry.
I hope my debugging patch givse some clues.
Thanks for the reporting, Ying.
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>