From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C46E3C433E0 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:41:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD5D20708 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:41:29 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8FD5D20708 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 0C0DD6B0028; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 01:41:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 04A946B002B; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 01:41:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E7AF36B002C; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 01:41:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0087.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.87]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE6C6B0028 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 01:41:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin06.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860E61EE6 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:41:28 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77010182256.06.pump63_4f1830a26eb2 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0C91003B101 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:41:28 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: pump63_4f1830a26eb2 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4614 Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by imf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 05:41:27 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: DJcQSeY8CO7FoMd3Uf/P6Uqe7DWi+QbyalYutRU2z9ZjJoeioIoPfNfqc/KkyiXmUChw/BVgRm WuMYXq+kX24w== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9674"; a="149051609" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,321,1589266800"; d="scan'208";a="149051609" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jul 2020 22:41:25 -0700 IronPort-SDR: FSNhW8VrQIYxVDuURu1WYzQeuKzoq5PkkMeyvVkFPYE7Bnx91dYtbXg4fQc8qLYQNQuiSNl9l0 ve7HLN6ylEBg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,321,1589266800"; d="scan'208";a="305536538" Received: from shbuild999.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.146.107]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Jul 2020 22:41:20 -0700 Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:41:20 +0800 From: Feng Tang To: "Huang, Ying" Cc: Andi Kleen , Qian Cai , Andrew Morton , Dennis Zhou , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , kernel test robot , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Matthew Wilcox , Mel Gorman , Kees Cook , Luis Chamberlain , Iurii Zaikin , tim.c.chen@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [mm] 4e2c82a409: ltp.overcommit_memory01.fail Message-ID: <20200707054120.GC21741@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> References: <20200705044454.GA90533@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20200705125854.GA66252@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20200705155232.GA608@lca.pw> <20200706014313.GB66252@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20200706023614.GA1231@lca.pw> <20200706132443.GA34488@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20200706133434.GA3483883@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20200707023829.GA85993@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <87zh8c7z5i.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87zh8c7z5i.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5A0C91003B101 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 12:00:09PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > Feng Tang writes: > > > On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 06:34:34AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > >> > ret = proc_dointvec_minmax(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos); > >> > - if (ret == 0 && write) > >> > + if (ret == 0 && write) { > >> > + if (sysctl_overcommit_memory == OVERCOMMIT_NEVER) > >> > + schedule_on_each_cpu(sync_overcommit_as); > >> > >> The schedule_on_each_cpu is not atomic, so the problem could still happen > >> in that window. > >> > >> I think it may be ok if it eventually resolves, but certainly needs > >> a comment explaining it. Can you do some stress testing toggling the > >> policy all the time on different CPUs and running the test on > >> other CPUs and see if the test fails? > > > > For the raw test case reported by 0day, this patch passed in 200 times > > run. And I will read the ltp code and try stress testing it as you > > suggested. > > > > > >> The other alternative would be to define some intermediate state > >> for the sysctl variable and only switch to never once the schedule_on_each_cpu > >> returned. But that's more complexity. > > > > One thought I had is to put this schedule_on_each_cpu() before > > the proc_dointvec_minmax() to do the sync before sysctl_overcommit_memory > > is really changed. But the window still exists, as the batch is > > still the larger one. > > Can we change the batch firstly, then sync the global counter, finally > change the overcommit policy? These reorderings are really head scratching :) I've thought about this before when Qian Cai first reported the warning message, as kernel had a check: VM_WARN_ONCE(percpu_counter_read(&vm_committed_as) < -(s64)vm_committed_as_batch * num_online_cpus(), "memory commitment underflow"); If the batch is decreased first, the warning will be easier/earlier to be triggered, so I didn't brought this up when handling the warning message. But it might work now, as the warning has been removed. Thanks, Feng