On Wed, 24 Apr 2013, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:18:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 24-04-13 12:42:55, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 09:13:03AM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > > Ok, thanks for verifying! I'll look into it; hopefully I can reproduce it > > > > here as well. > > > > > > That seems to be a common code bug. I can easily trigger the VM_BUG_ON() > > > below (when I force the system to swap): > > > > > > [ 48.347963] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > [ 48.347972] kernel BUG at mm/memcontrol.c:3994! > > > [ 48.348012] illegal operation: 0001 [#1] SMP > > > [ 48.348015] Modules linked in: > > > [ 48.348017] CPU: 1 Not tainted 3.9.0-rc8+ #38 > > > [ 48.348020] Process mmap2 (pid: 635, task: 0000000029476100, ksp: 000000002e91b938) > > > [ 48.348022] Krnl PSW : 0704f00180000000 000000000026552c (__mem_cgroup_uncharge_common+0x2c4/0x33c) > > > [ 48.348032] R:0 T:1 IO:1 EX:1 Key:0 M:1 W:0 P:0 AS:3 CC:3 PM:0 EA:3 > > > Krnl GPRS: 0000000000000008 0000000000000009 000003d1002a9200 0000000000000000 > > > [ 48.348039] 0000000000000000 00000000006812d8 000003ffdf339000 00000000321a6f98 > > > [ 48.348043] 000003fffce11000 0000000000000000 0000000000000001 000003d1002a9200 > > > [ 48.348046] 0000000000000001 0000000000681b88 000000002e91bc18 000000002e91bbd0 > > > [ 48.348057] Krnl Code: 000000000026551e: c0e5fffaa2a1 brasl %r14,1b9a60 > > > 0000000000265524: a7f4ff7d brc 15,26541e > > > #0000000000265528: a7f40001 brc 15,26552a > > > >000000000026552c: e3c0b8200124 stg %r12,6176(%r11) > > > 0000000000265532: a7f4ff57 brc 15,2653e0 > > > 0000000000265536: e310b8280104 lg %r1,6184(%r11) > > > 000000000026553c: a71b0001 aghi %r1,1 > > > 0000000000265540: e310b8280124 stg %r1,6184(%r11) > > > [ 48.348099] Call Trace: > > > [ 48.348100] ([<000003d1002a91c0>] 0x3d1002a91c0) > > > [ 48.348102] [<00000000002404aa>] page_remove_rmap+0xf2/0x16c > > > [ 48.348106] [<0000000000232dc8>] unmap_single_vma+0x494/0x7d8 > > > [ 48.348107] [<0000000000233ac0>] unmap_vmas+0x50/0x74 > > > [ 48.348109] [<00000000002396ec>] unmap_region+0x9c/0x110 > > > [ 48.348110] [<000000000023bd18>] do_munmap+0x284/0x470 > > > [ 48.348111] [<000000000023bf56>] vm_munmap+0x52/0x70 > > > [ 48.348113] [<000000000023cf32>] SyS_munmap+0x3a/0x4c > > > [ 48.348114] [<0000000000665e14>] sysc_noemu+0x22/0x28 > > > [ 48.348118] [<000003fffcf187b2>] 0x3fffcf187b2 > > > [ 48.348119] Last Breaking-Event-Address: > > > [ 48.348120] [<0000000000265528>] __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common+0x2c0/0x33c > > > > > > Looking at the code, the code flow is: > > > > > > page_remove_rmap() -> mem_cgroup_uncharge_page() -> __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common() > > > > > > Note that in mem_cgroup_uncharge_page() the page in question passed the check: > > > > > > [...] > > > if (PageSwapCache(page)) > > > return; > > > [...] > > > > > > and just a couple of instructions later the VM_BUG_ON() within > > > __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common() triggers: > > > > > > [...] > > > if (mem_cgroup_disabled()) > > > return NULL; > > > > > > VM_BUG_ON(PageSwapCache(page)); > > > [...] > > > > > > Which means that another cpu changed the pageflags concurrently. In fact, > > > looking at the dump a different cpu is indeed busy with running kswapd. > > > > Hmm, maybe I am missing something but it really looks like we can race > > here. Reclaim path takes the page lock while zap_pte takes page table > > lock so nothing prevents them from racing here: > > shrink_page_list zap_pte_range > > trylock_page pte_offset_map_lock > > add_to_swap page_remove_rmap > > /* Page can be still mapped */ > > add_to_swap_cache atomic_add_negative(_mapcount) > > __add_to_swap_cache mem_cgroup_uncharge_page > > (PageSwapCache(page)) && return > > SetPageSwapCache > > __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common > > VM_BUG_ON(PageSwapCache(page)) > > > > Maybe not many people run with CONFIG_DEBUG_VM enabled these days so we > > do not this more often (even me testing configs are not consistent in > > that regards and only few have it on). The only thing that changed in > > this area recently is 0c59b89c which made the test VM_BUG_ON rather then > > simple return in 3.6 > > And maybe the BUG_ON is too harsh as CgroupUsed should guarantee that > > the uncharge will eventually go away. What do you think Johannes? > > Interesting. We need to ensure there is ordering between setting > PG_swapcache and installing swap entries because I think we are the > only ones looking at PG_swapcache without the page lock held. So we > don't have a safe way to check for PG_swapcache but if we get it > wrong, we may steal an uncharge that uncharge_swapcache() should be > doing instead and that means we mess up the swap statistics > accounting. > > So how can we, without holding the page lock, either safely back off > from a page in swapcache or make sure we do the swap statistics > accounting when uncharging a swapcache page from the final unmap? Awkward. I agree that the actual memcg uncharging should be okay, but the memsw swap stats will go wrong (doesn't matter toooo much), and mem_cgroup_put get missed (leaking a struct mem_cgroup). I confess to having seen this myself, just once, on x86_64 3.8-rc6-mm1 plus some patches I was testing; but I never got back to look into it. I wonder if something gone into 3.9 has changed the timing to make it more easily reproduced now; but the underlying problem has been there a long time - long before your VM_BUG_ON was there to expose it. For now I guess the best is just to remove the VM_BUG_ON, or restore it to a (usually redundant) return NULL, and live with the old leak. But the real fix... I fear it may involve adding another PageCgroup flag, just for memsw, to ensure that its counts are kept in balance even when SwapCache races cause what's been charged in one way to get uncharged in an unexpected way. All those PageSwapCache and page_mapped tests are suspect: I expect most will turn out to be okay, one way or another, but they are suspicious and deserve audit. (But I won't be working on this myself, sorry.) Hugh -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>