On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 7:01 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 1:25 PM Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx> 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
> > reparent
> > dst->nr_items == 0
> > shrinker:
> > total_objects == 0
> > add src->nr_items to dst
> > set_bit
> > retrun SHRINK_EMPTY
>
> return
>
> > clear_bit
> > child memcg offline
> > replace child's kmemcg_id to
>
> with
>
> > parent's (in memcg_offline_kmem())
> > list_lru_del() between shrinker runs
> > see parent's kmemcg_id
> > dec dst->nr_items
> > reparent again
> > dst->nr_items may go negative
> > due to concurrent list_lru_del()
> >
> > 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
>
> coincidently
>
> >
> > 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
>
> children's
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Since it is impossible that dst->nr_items goes negative and
> > src->nr_items goes zero at the same time, so it seems we could set the
> > shrinker map bit iff src->nr_items != 0. We could synchronize
> > list_lru_count_one() and reparenting with nlru->lock, but it seems
> > checking src->nr_items in reparenting is the simplest and avoids lock
> > contention.
> >
> > Fixes: fae91d6d8be5 ("mm/list_lru.c: set bit in memcg shrinker bitmap on first list_lru item appearance")
> > Suggested-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
> > Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> v4.19+
> > Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for finding those spelling errors. Will fix in v4.
