On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 9:17 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 01.12.2020 20:15, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 2:25 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 30.11.2020 23:09, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:45:14AM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> >>>> When investigating a slab cache bloat problem, significant amount of
> >>>> negative dentry cache was seen, but confusingly they neither got shrunk
> >>>> by reclaimer (the host has very tight memory) nor be shrunk by dropping
> >>>> cache. The vmcore shows there are over 14M negative dentry objects on lru,
> >>>> but tracing result shows they were even not scanned at all. The further
> >>>> investigation shows the memcg's vfs shrinker_map bit is not set. So the
> >>>> reclaimer or dropping cache just skip calling vfs shrinker. So we have
> >>>> to reboot the hosts to get the memory back.
> >>>>
> >>>> I didn't manage to come up with a reproducer in test environment, and the
> >>>> problem can't be reproduced after rebooting. But it seems there is race
> >>>> between shrinker map bit clear and reparenting by code inspection. The
> >>>> hypothesis is elaborated as below.
> >>>>
> >>>> The memcg hierarchy on our production environment looks like:
> >>>> root
> >>>> / \
> >>>> system user
> >>>>
> >>>> The main workloads are running under user slice's children, and it creates
> >>>> and removes memcg frequently. So reparenting happens very often under user
> >>>> slice, but no task is under user slice directly.
> >>>>
> >>>> So with the frequent reparenting and tight memory pressure, the below
> >>>> hypothetical race condition may happen:
> >>>>
> >>>> CPU A CPU B CPU C
> >>>> reparent
> >>>> dst->nr_items == 0
> >>>> shrinker:
> >>>> total_objects == 0
> >>>> add src->nr_items to dst
> >>>> set_bit
> >>>> retrun SHRINK_EMPTY
> >>>> clear_bit
> >>>> list_lru_del()
> >>>> reparent again
> >>>> dst->nr_items may go negative
> >>>> due to current list_lru_del()
> >>>> on CPU C
> >>>> The second run of shrinker:
> >>>> read nr_items without any
> >>>> synchronization, so it may
> >>>> see intermediate negative
> >>>> nr_items then total_objects
> >>>> may return 0 conincidently
> >>>>
> >>>> keep the bit cleared
> >>>> dst->nr_items != 0
> >>>> skip set_bit
> >>>> add scr->nr_item to dst
> >>>>
> >>>> After this point dst->nr_item may never go zero, so reparenting will not
> >>>> set shrinker_map bit anymore. And since there is no task under user
> >>>> slice directly, so no new object will be added to its lru to set the
> >>>> shrinker map bit either. That bit is kept cleared forever.
> >>>>
> >>>> How does list_lru_del() race with reparenting? It is because
> >>>> reparenting replaces childen's kmemcg_id to parent's without protecting
> >>>> from nlru->lock, so list_lru_del() may see parent's kmemcg_id but
> >>>> actually deleting items from child's lru, but dec'ing parent's nr_items,
> >>>> so the parent's nr_items may go negative as commit
> >>>> 2788cf0c401c268b4819c5407493a8769b7007aa ("memcg: reparent list_lrus and
> >>>> free kmemcg_id on css offline") says.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can we move kmemcg_id replacement after reparenting? No, because the
> >>>> race with list_lru_del() may result in negative src->nr_items, but it
> >>>> will never be fixed. So the shrinker may never return SHRINK_EMPTY then
> >>>> keep the shrinker map bit set always. The shrinker will be always
> >>>> called for nonsense.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can we synchronize list_lru_del() and reparenting? Yes, it could be
> >>>> done. But it seems we need introduce a new lock or use nlru->lock. But
> >>>> it sounds complicated to move kmemcg_id replacement code under nlru->lock.
> >>>> And list_lru_del() may be called quite often to exacerbate some hot
> >>>> path, i.e. dentry kill.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, it sounds acceptable to synchronize reading nr_items to avoid seeing
> >>>> intermediate negative nr_items given the simplicity and it is typically
> >>>> just called by shrinkers when counting the freeable objects.
> >>>>
> >>>> The patch is tested with some shrinker intensive workloads, no
> >>>> noticeable regression is soptted.
> >>>
> >>> Hi Yang!
> >>>
> >>> It's really tricky, thank you for digging in! It's a perfect analysis!
> >>>
> >>> I wonder though, if it's better to just always set the shrinker bit on reparenting
> >>> if we do reparent some items? Then we'll avoid adding new synchronization
> >>> to the hot path. What do you think?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> @@ -534,7 +534,6 @@ static void memcg_drain_list_lru_node(struct list_lru *lru, int nid,
> >>> struct list_lru_node *nlru = &lru->node[nid];
> >>> int dst_idx = dst_memcg->kmemcg_id;
> >>> struct list_lru_one *src, *dst;
> >>> - bool set;
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>> * Since list_lru_{add,del} may be called under an IRQ-safe lock,
> >>> @@ -546,9 +545,8 @@ static void memcg_drain_list_lru_node(struct list_lru *lru, int nid,
> >>> dst = list_lru_from_memcg_idx(nlru, dst_idx);
> >>>
> >>> list_splice_init(&src->list, &dst->list);
> >>> - set = (!dst->nr_items && src->nr_items);
> >>> dst->nr_items += src->nr_items;
> >>> - if (set)
> >>> + if (src->nr_items)
> >>> memcg_set_shrinker_bit(dst_memcg, nid, lru_shrinker_id(lru));
> >>> src->nr_items = 0;
> >>
> >> This looks like a good fix.
> >>
> >> To make a code more clear, we may also want to group neighbouring lines
> >> under the same "if" branch in Yang's v2 resend.
> >
> > You mean something like the below (diff based on Roman's proposal)?
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/list_lru.c b/mm/list_lru.c
> > index 127c2cf9f831..fe230081690b 100644
> > --- a/mm/list_lru.c
> > +++ b/mm/list_lru.c
> > @@ -545,10 +545,12 @@ static void memcg_drain_list_lru_node(struct
> > list_lru *lru, int nid,
> > dst = list_lru_from_memcg_idx(nlru, dst_idx);
> >
> > list_splice_init(&src->list, &dst->list);
> > - dst->nr_items += src->nr_items;
> > - if (src->nr_items)
> > +
> > + if (src->nr_items) {
> > + dst->nr_items += src->nr_items;
> > memcg_set_shrinker_bit(dst_memcg, nid, lru_shrinker_id(lru));
> > - src->nr_items = 0;
> > + src->nr_items = 0;
> > + }
> >
> > spin_unlock_irq(&nlru->lock);
>
> Yes.
Thanks for confirming. Will solve all the comments in v2.
