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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 EF30AC33CB3 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 08:17:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DFAE2467B for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 08:17:17 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9DFAE2467B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 07D5E6B0006; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 03:17:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 005EA6B000C; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 03:17:16 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E100D6B000D; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 03:17:16 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0098.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.98]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C87526B0006 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 03:17:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin24.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 89AA8181AEF15 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 08:17:16 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76426338072.24.space28_3f742ddf95a56 X-HE-Tag: space28_3f742ddf95a56 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5837 Received: from mail-wm1-f67.google.com (mail-wm1-f67.google.com [209.85.128.67]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 08:17:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f67.google.com with SMTP id f129so1463701wmf.2 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:17:15 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=ErBG9pYwzWOEtyUstgnFdD6SGk7GMiHGUbPrDMcYEeU=; b=eCqm++auGdwEZ2/367Bjjz9Ngh2TmnceB0gr7XhQ0W0+m3N0Uf4ZXRpUB0GaErofCp d9nbX3tRFsZMQCyLjHRMVCzujo2kWlxYMZpoCiygf2TgBYRKphyGCr9DJ3CHAy4HMFDj u3jt6HhMNlcxXKR+fPxmFIMivPBUX9XVdV8tklABFoGw7PP/Z2phC3E/h92IzXxg9+vi k0x7Uy0Y5883oUT1axeYid2Y9lodcG0B8WsNv0JjgIzxYGRWBEDpYb/p8vklLbBOCOXE dDH5Zj32RdDAm+x0YVDYr1mXINgzvydL3DB4UPM7i7bzJSYaMI0D9Qx/0zlPPEDgPgmF c+LQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV+eJ85PfcyYVsMCdcYFwTONLAC971iGFnMNF108dWBuliTl/vX vtIILup9aCrMsOyRmeHEEto= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwXWJpXhgy7c1nfP/EKf5EVnl3p5sYU2vtnW1V3WfMDC+uDDqbqvAMsrM9dNr2cOskc/aNjZA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:ba83:: with SMTP id k125mr3486794wmf.106.1580199434739; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:17:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (37-48-13-185.nat.epc.tmcz.cz. [37.48.13.185]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n10sm24167762wrt.14.2020.01.28.00.17.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:17:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 09:17:12 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Cong Wang , LKML , Andrew Morton , linux-mm , Mel Gorman , Vlastimil Babka Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid blocking lock_page() in kcompactd Message-ID: <20200128081712.GA18145@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200109225646.22983-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> <20200110073822.GC29802@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200121090048.GG29276@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200126233935.GA11536@bombadil.infradead.org> <20200127150024.GN1183@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200127190653.GA8708@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200127190653.GA8708@bombadil.infradead.org> 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 Mon 27-01-20 11:06:53, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 04:00:24PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Sun 26-01-20 15:39:35, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 11:53:55AM -0800, Cong Wang wrote: > > > > I suspect the process gets stuck in the retry loop in try_charge(), as > > > > the _shortest_ stacktrace of the perf samples indicated: > > > > > > > > cycles:ppp: > > > > ffffffffa72963db mem_cgroup_iter > > > > ffffffffa72980ca mem_cgroup_oom_unlock > > > > ffffffffa7298c15 try_charge > > > > ffffffffa729a886 mem_cgroup_try_charge > > > > ffffffffa720ec03 __add_to_page_cache_locked > > > > ffffffffa720ee3a add_to_page_cache_lru > > > > ffffffffa7312ddb iomap_readpages_actor > > > > ffffffffa73133f7 iomap_apply > > > > ffffffffa73135da iomap_readpages > > > > ffffffffa722062e read_pages > > > > ffffffffa7220b3f __do_page_cache_readahead > > > > ffffffffa7210554 filemap_fault > > > > ffffffffc039e41f __xfs_filemap_fault > > > > ffffffffa724f5e7 __do_fault > > > > ffffffffa724c5f2 __handle_mm_fault > > > > ffffffffa724cbc6 handle_mm_fault > > > > ffffffffa70a313e __do_page_fault > > > > ffffffffa7a00dfe page_fault > > > > > > > > But I don't see how it could be, the only possible case is when > > > > mem_cgroup_oom() returns OOM_SUCCESS. However I can't > > > > find any clue in dmesg pointing to OOM. These processes in the > > > > same memcg are either running or sleeping (that is not exiting or > > > > coredump'ing), I don't see how and why they could be selected as > > > > a victim of OOM killer. I don't see any signal pending either from > > > > their /proc/X/status. > > > > > > I think this is a situation where we might end up with a genuine deadlock > > > if we're not trylocking the pages. readahead allocates a batch of > > > locked pages and adds them to the pagecache. If it has allocated, > > > say, 5 pages, successfully inserted the first three into i_pages, then > > > needs to allocate memory to insert the fourth one into i_pages, and > > > the process then attempts to migrate the pages which are still locked, > > > they will never come unlocked because they haven't yet been submitted > > > to the filesystem for reading. > > > > Just to make sure I understand. Do you mean this? > > lock_page(A) > > alloc_pages > > try_to_compact_pages > > compact_zone_order > > compact_zone(MIGRATE_SYNC_LIGHT) > > migrate_pages > > unmap_and_move > > __unmap_and_move > > lock_page(A) > > Yes. There's a little more to it than that, eg slab is involved, but > you have it in a nutshell. I am not deeply familiar with the readahead code. But is there really a high oerder allocation (order > 1) that would trigger compaction in the phase when pages are locked? Btw. the compaction rejects to consider file backed pages when __GFP_FS is not present AFAIR. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs