Thank you for your investigation and a patch.
I've not been able to replicate this issue on my machine, I think it would be
better to push this patch to -stable, if it can fix the issue.
Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:30:21 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I think this can be a fix.
> maybe good to CC Oleg.
> ==
> From dff52fb35af0cf36486965d19ee79e04b59f1dc4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:15:14 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] [BUGFIX] update mm->owner even if no next owner.
>
> A panic is reported.
>
> > Call Trace:
> > Â[<ffffffff81139792>] mem_cgroup_from_task+0x15/0x17
> > Â[<ffffffff8113a75a>] __mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x148/0x4b4
> > Â[<ffffffff810493f3>] ? need_resched+0x23/0x2d
> > Â[<ffffffff814cbf43>] ? preempt_schedule+0x46/0x4f
> > Â[<ffffffff8113afe8>] mem_cgroup_charge_common+0x9a/0xce
> > Â[<ffffffff8113b6d1>] mem_cgroup_newpage_charge+0x5d/0x5f
> > Â[<ffffffff81134024>] khugepaged+0x5da/0xfaf
> > Â[<ffffffff81078ea0>] ? __init_waitqueue_head+0x4b/0x4b
> > Â[<ffffffff81133a4a>] ? add_mm_counter.constprop.5+0x13/0x13
> > Â[<ffffffff81078625>] kthread+0xa8/0xb0
> > Â[<ffffffff814d13e8>] ? sub_preempt_count+0xa1/0xb4
> > Â[<ffffffff814d5664>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> > Â[<ffffffff814ce858>] ? retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13
> > Â[<ffffffff8107857d>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x5a/0x5a
>
> The code is.
> > return container_of(task_subsys_state(p, mem_cgroup_subsys_id),
> > struct mem_cgroup, css);
>
>
> What happens here is accssing a freed task struct "p" from mm->owner.
> So, it's doubtful that mm->owner points to freed task struct.
>
> At thread exit, we need to handle mm->owner. If exitting-thread == mm->owner,
> we modify mm->owner to points to other exisiting task. But, we do not update
> mm->owner when there are no more threads. But if a kernel thread, like khugepaged,
> picks up a mm_struct without updating mm->users, there is a trouble.
>
> When mm_users shows that the task is the last task belongs to mm.
> mm->owner is not updated and remained to point to the task. So, in this case,
> mm->owner points to a not exisiting task. This was good because if there
> are no thread, no charge happens in old days. But now, we have ksm and
> khugepaged.
>
> rcu_read_lock() used in memcg is of no use because mm->owner can be
> freed before we take rcu_read_lock.
> Then, mm->owner should be cleared if there are no next owner.
>
> Reported-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/exit.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
> index 20a4064..dbc3736 100644
> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -582,8 +582,10 @@ void mm_update_next_owner(struct mm_struct *mm)
> struct task_struct *c, *g, *p = current;
>
> retry:
> - if (!mm_need_new_owner(mm, p))
> + if (!mm_need_new_owner(mm, p)) {
> + rcu_assign_pointer(mm->owner, NULL);
> return;
> + }
>
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> /*
> @@ -617,7 +619,7 @@ retry:
> * most likely racing with swapoff (try_to_unuse()) or /proc or
> * ptrace or page migration (get_task_mm()). Mark owner as NULL.
> */
> - mm->owner = NULL;
> + rcu_assign_pointer(mm->owner, NULL);
> return;
>
> assign_new_owner:
> --
> 1.7.4.1
>
>
> --
> 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>
--
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>