Re: [mm] 4e2c82a409: ltp.overcommit_memory01.fail

From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@intel.com>, Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@google.com>,
	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
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:41:20 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200707054120.GC21741@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zh8c7z5i.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 12:00:09PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com> 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