From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-patch-test@lists.linaro.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kernel/trace:check the val against the available mem
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:06:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180403110612.GM5501@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180330102038.2378925b@gandalf.local.home>
On Fri 30-03-18 10:20:38, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> [ Adding memory management folks to discuss the issue ]
>
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 18:41:44 +0800
> Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is reported that some user app would like to echo a huge
> > number to "/sys/kernel/debug/tracing/buffer_size_kb" regardless
> > of the available memory, which will cause the coinstantaneous
> > page allocation failed and introduce OOM. The commit checking the
> > val against the available mem first to avoid the consequence allocation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@spreadtrum.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/trace/trace.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > index 2d0ffcc..a4a4237 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > @@ -43,6 +43,8 @@
> > #include <linux/trace.h>
> > #include <linux/sched/rt.h>
> >
> > +#include <linux/mm.h>
> > +#include <linux/swap.h>
> > #include "trace.h"
> > #include "trace_output.h"
> >
> > @@ -5967,6 +5969,39 @@ static ssize_t tracing_splice_read_pipe(struct file *filp,
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +static long get_available_mem(void)
> > +{
> > + struct sysinfo i;
> > + long available;
> > + unsigned long pagecache;
> > + unsigned long wmark_low = 0;
> > + unsigned long pages[NR_LRU_LISTS];
> > + struct zone *zone;
> > + int lru;
> > +
> > + si_meminfo(&i);
> > + si_swapinfo(&i);
> > +
> > + for (lru = LRU_BASE; lru < NR_LRU_LISTS; lru++)
> > + pages[lru] = global_page_state(NR_LRU_BASE + lru);
> > +
> > + for_each_zone(zone)
> > + wmark_low += zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW];
> > +
> > + available = i.freeram - wmark_low;
> > +
> > + pagecache = pages[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE] + pages[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE];
> > + pagecache -= min(pagecache / 2, wmark_low);
> > + available += pagecache;
> > +
> > + available += global_page_state(NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE) -
> > + min(global_page_state(NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE) / 2, wmark_low);
> > +
> > + if (available < 0)
> > + available = 0;
> > + return available;
> > +}
> > +
>
> As I stated in my other reply, the above function does not belong in
> tracing.
>
> That said, it appears you are having issues that were caused by the
> change by commit 848618857d2 ("tracing/ring_buffer: Try harder to
> allocate"), where we replaced NORETRY with RETRY_MAYFAIL. The point of
> NORETRY was to keep allocations of the tracing ring-buffer from causing
> OOMs. But the RETRY was too strong in that case, because there were
> those that wanted to allocate large ring buffers but it would fail due
> to memory being used that could be reclaimed. Supposedly, RETRY_MAYFAIL
> is to allocate with reclaim but still allow to fail, and isn't suppose
> to trigger an OOM. From my own tests, this is obviously not the case.
>
> Perhaps this is because the ring buffer allocates one page at a time,
> and by doing so, it can get every last available page, and if anything
> in the mean time does an allocation without MAYFAIL, it will cause an
> OOM. For example, when I stressed this I triggered this:
Yes, this is indeed the case.
> pool invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x14200ca(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE), nodemask=(null), order=0, oom_score_adj=0
> pool cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0
> CPU: 7 PID: 1040 Comm: pool Not tainted 4.16.0-rc4-test+ #663
> Hardware name: Hewlett-Packard HP Compaq Pro 6300 SFF/339A, BIOS K01 v03.03 07/14/2016
> Call Trace:
> dump_stack+0x8e/0xce
> dump_header.isra.30+0x6e/0x28f
> ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x30/0x60
> oom_kill_process+0x218/0x400
> ? has_capability_noaudit+0x17/0x20
> out_of_memory+0xe3/0x5c0
> __alloc_pages_slowpath+0xa8e/0xe50
> __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x206/0x220
> alloc_pages_current+0x6a/0xe0
> __page_cache_alloc+0x6a/0xa0
> filemap_fault+0x208/0x5f0
> ? __might_sleep+0x4a/0x80
> ext4_filemap_fault+0x31/0x44
> __do_fault+0x20/0xd0
> __handle_mm_fault+0xc08/0x1160
> handle_mm_fault+0x76/0x110
> __do_page_fault+0x299/0x580
> do_page_fault+0x2d/0x110
> ? page_fault+0x2f/0x50
> page_fault+0x45/0x50
>
> I wonder if I should have the ring buffer allocate groups of pages, to
> avoid this. Or try to allocate with NORETRY, one page at a time, and
> when that fails, allocate groups of pages with RETRY_MAYFAIL, and that
> may keep it from causing an OOM?
I wonder why it really matters. The interface is root only and we expect
some sanity from an admin, right? So allocating such a large ring buffer
that it sends the system to the OOM is a sign that the admin should be
more careful. Balancing on the OOM edge is always a risk and the result
will highly depend on the workload running in parallel.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-03 11:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-29 10:41 [PATCH v1] kernel/trace:check the val against the available mem Zhaoyang Huang
2018-03-29 16:05 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-30 3:32 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2018-03-30 14:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-30 6:53 ` [Kernel-patch-test] " kbuild test robot
2018-03-30 6:54 ` kbuild test robot
2018-03-30 14:20 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-30 16:37 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-03-30 19:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-30 20:37 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-03-30 20:53 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-30 21:30 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-30 21:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-30 23:38 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-03-31 1:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-31 2:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-31 3:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-31 5:44 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-02 0:52 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2018-04-03 11:06 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2018-04-03 11:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-03 12:16 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-03 12:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-03 12:35 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-03 13:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-03 13:56 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-03 14:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-03 16:11 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-03 16:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-03 22:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-04 6:20 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-04 12:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-04 12:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-04 14:10 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-04 14:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-04 14:42 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-04 15:04 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-04 15:27 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-04 15:38 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-04 2:58 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2018-04-04 6:23 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-04 9:29 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2018-04-04 14:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-04 14:23 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-04 14:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-04 14:47 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-04 15:47 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-05 2:58 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-04-05 4:12 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-05 14:22 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-04-05 14:27 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-05 14:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-04-05 15:13 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-04-05 15:32 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-05 16:15 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-04-05 18:54 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-05 20:15 ` __GFP_LOW Matthew Wilcox
2018-04-06 6:09 ` __GFP_LOW Michal Hocko
2018-04-08 4:27 ` __GFP_LOW Matthew Wilcox
2018-04-09 7:34 ` __GFP_LOW Michal Hocko
2018-04-09 15:51 ` __GFP_LOW Matthew Wilcox
2018-04-09 18:14 ` __GFP_LOW Michal Hocko
[not found] ` <CA+JonM0HG9kWb6-0iyDQ8UMxTeR-f=+ZL89t5DvvDULDC8Sfyw@mail.gmail.com>
2018-04-10 12:19 ` __GFP_LOW Matthew Wilcox
2018-04-05 14:30 ` [PATCH v1] kernel/trace:check the val against the available mem Steven Rostedt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180403110612.GM5501@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=huangzhaoyang@gmail.com \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=kernel-patch-test@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).