[RHEL7,COMMIT] ms/mm: list_lru: set shrinker map bit when child nr_items is not zero

Submitted by Vasily Averin on Dec. 3, 2020, 12:30 p.m.


Message ID 202012031230.0B3CUaZq010771@vz7build.vvs.sw.ru
State New
Series "ms/mm: list_lru: set shrinker map bit when child nr_items is not zero"
Headers show

Commit Message

Vasily Averin Dec. 3, 2020, 12:30 p.m.
The commit is pushed to "branch-rh7-3.10.0-1160.6.1.vz7.171.x-ovz" and will appear at https://src.openvz.org/scm/ovz/vzkernel.git
after rh7-3.10.0-1160.6.1.vz7.171.2
commit 53ab3040fb2973e9446b95ae4824c0639c00b40a
Author: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu Dec 3 15:30:36 2020 +0300

    ms/mm: list_lru: set shrinker map bit when child nr_items is not zero
    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:
                   /    \
              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
        dst->nr_items == 0
                                         total_objects == 0
        add src->nr_items to dst
                                         return SHRINK_EMPTY
    child memcg offline
        replace child's kmemcg_id 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 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 children'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.
    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
    Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201202171749.264354-1-shy828301@gmail.com
    Fixes: fae91d6d8be5 ("mm/list_lru.c: set bit in memcg shrinker bitmap on first list_lru item appearance")
    Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
    Suggested-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
    Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
    Acked-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
    Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
    Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
    Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>	[4.19]
    Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
    Signed-off-by: Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com>
 mm/list_lru.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

diff --git a/mm/list_lru.c b/mm/list_lru.c
index 21e12a8..c7a51e3 100644
--- a/mm/list_lru.c
+++ b/mm/list_lru.c
@@ -511,7 +511,6 @@  static void memcg_drain_list_lru_node(struct list_lru *lru, int nid,
 	struct list_lru_node *nlru = &lru->node[nid];
 	int dst_idx = memcg_cache_id(dst_memcg);
 	struct list_lru_one *src, *dst;
-	bool set;
 	 * Since list_lru_{add,del} may be called under an IRQ-safe lock,
@@ -523,11 +522,12 @@  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);
-	set = (!dst->nr_items && src->nr_items);
-	dst->nr_items += src->nr_items;
-	if (set)
+	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;
+	}