The patch titled
Subject: mm/mglru: fix ineffective protection calculation
has been added to the -mm mm-hotfixes-unstable branch. Its filename is
mm-mglru-fix-ineffective-protection-calculation.patch
This patch will shortly appear at
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patches/mm-mglru-fix-ineffective-protection-calculation.patch
This patch will later appear in the mm-hotfixes-unstable branch at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next via the mm-everything
branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
and is updated there every 2-3 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: mm/mglru: fix ineffective protection calculation
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:29:56 -0600
mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() is not stateless and should only be used
as part of a top-down tree traversal. shrink_one() traverses the per-node
memcg LRU instead of the root_mem_cgroup tree, and therefore it should not
call mem_cgroup_calculate_protection().
The existing misuse in shrink_one() can cause ineffective protection of
sub-trees that are grandchildren of root_mem_cgroup. Fix it by reusing
lru_gen_age_node(), which already traverses the root_mem_cgroup tree, to
calculate the protection.
Previously lru_gen_age_node() opportunistically skips the first pass,
i.e., when scan_control->priority is DEF_PRIORITY. On the second pass,
lruvec_is_sizable() uses appropriate scan_control->priority, set by
set_initial_priority() from lru_gen_shrink_node(), to decide whether a
memcg is too small to reclaim from.
Now lru_gen_age_node() unconditionally traverses the root_mem_cgroup tree.
So it should call set_initial_priority() upfront, to make sure
lruvec_is_sizable() uses appropriate scan_control->priority on the first
pass. Otherwise, lruvec_is_reclaimable() can return false negatives and
result in premature OOM kills when min_ttl_ms is used.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240712232956.1427127-1-yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx
Fixes: e4dde56cd208 ("mm: multi-gen LRU: per-node lru_gen_folio lists")
Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: T.J. Mercier <tjmercier@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/vmscan.c | 30 ++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
--- a/mm/vmscan.c~mm-mglru-fix-ineffective-protection-calculation
+++ a/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -3933,19 +3933,17 @@ static bool lruvec_is_reclaimable(struct
struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec);
DEFINE_MIN_SEQ(lruvec);
- /* see the comment on lru_gen_folio */
- gen = lru_gen_from_seq(min_seq[LRU_GEN_FILE]);
- birth = READ_ONCE(lruvec->lrugen.timestamps[gen]);
-
- if (time_is_after_jiffies(birth + min_ttl))
+ if (mem_cgroup_below_min(NULL, memcg))
return false;
if (!lruvec_is_sizable(lruvec, sc))
return false;
- mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(NULL, memcg);
+ /* see the comment on lru_gen_folio */
+ gen = lru_gen_from_seq(min_seq[LRU_GEN_FILE]);
+ birth = READ_ONCE(lruvec->lrugen.timestamps[gen]);
- return !mem_cgroup_below_min(NULL, memcg);
+ return time_is_before_jiffies(birth + min_ttl);
}
/* to protect the working set of the last N jiffies */
@@ -3955,23 +3953,20 @@ static void lru_gen_age_node(struct pgli
{
struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
unsigned long min_ttl = READ_ONCE(lru_gen_min_ttl);
+ bool reclaimable = !min_ttl;
VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!current_is_kswapd());
- /* check the order to exclude compaction-induced reclaim */
- if (!min_ttl || sc->order || sc->priority == DEF_PRIORITY)
- return;
+ set_initial_priority(pgdat, sc);
memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, NULL, NULL);
do {
struct lruvec *lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(memcg, pgdat);
- if (lruvec_is_reclaimable(lruvec, sc, min_ttl)) {
- mem_cgroup_iter_break(NULL, memcg);
- return;
- }
+ mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(NULL, memcg);
- cond_resched();
+ if (!reclaimable)
+ reclaimable = lruvec_is_reclaimable(lruvec, sc, min_ttl);
} while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, memcg, NULL)));
/*
@@ -3979,7 +3974,7 @@ static void lru_gen_age_node(struct pgli
* younger than min_ttl. However, another possibility is all memcgs are
* either too small or below min.
*/
- if (mutex_trylock(&oom_lock)) {
+ if (!reclaimable && mutex_trylock(&oom_lock)) {
struct oom_control oc = {
.gfp_mask = sc->gfp_mask,
};
@@ -4772,8 +4767,7 @@ static int shrink_one(struct lruvec *lru
struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec);
struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec);
- mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(NULL, memcg);
-
+ /* lru_gen_age_node() called mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() */
if (mem_cgroup_below_min(NULL, memcg))
return MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG;
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx are
mm-mglru-fix-ineffective-protection-calculation.patch
