From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751544AbeB0B0D (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:26:03 -0500
Received: from out30-133.freemail.mail.aliyun.com ([115.124.30.133]:58037 "EHLO
        out30-133.freemail.mail.aliyun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751094AbeB0B0B (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:26:01 -0500
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R731e4;CH=green;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e01355;MF=yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=6;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0SyYNSrF_1519694753;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4 v2] Define killable version for access_remote_vm()
 and use it in fs/proc
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@kernel.org, adobriyan@gmail.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1519691151-101999-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802261656490.16999@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
From: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Message-ID: <4ec32e5b-af63-f412-2213-e52bdbcc9585@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:25:52 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802261656490.16999@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On 2/26/18 5:02 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Yang Shi wrote:
>
>> Background:
>> When running vm-scalability with large memory (> 300GB), the below hung
>> task issue happens occasionally.
>>
>> INFO: task ps:14018 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>>         Tainted: G            E 4.9.79-009.ali3000.alios7.x86_64 #1
>>   "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
>>   ps              D    0 14018      1 0x00000004
>>    ffff885582f84000 ffff885e8682f000 ffff880972943000 ffff885ebf499bc0
>>    ffff8828ee120000 ffffc900349bfca8 ffffffff817154d0 0000000000000040
>>    00ffffff812f872a ffff885ebf499bc0 024000d000948300 ffff880972943000
>>   Call Trace:
>>    [<ffffffff817154d0>] ? __schedule+0x250/0x730
>>    [<ffffffff817159e6>] schedule+0x36/0x80
>>    [<ffffffff81718560>] rwsem_down_read_failed+0xf0/0x150
>>    [<ffffffff81390a28>] call_rwsem_down_read_failed+0x18/0x30
>>    [<ffffffff81717db0>] down_read+0x20/0x40
>>    [<ffffffff812b9439>] proc_pid_cmdline_read+0xd9/0x4e0
>>    [<ffffffff81253c95>] ? do_filp_open+0xa5/0x100
>>    [<ffffffff81241d87>] __vfs_read+0x37/0x150
>>    [<ffffffff812f824b>] ? security_file_permission+0x9b/0xc0
>>    [<ffffffff81242266>] vfs_read+0x96/0x130
>>    [<ffffffff812437b5>] SyS_read+0x55/0xc0
>>    [<ffffffff8171a6da>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1a/0xc5
>>
>> When manipulating a large mapping, the process may hold the mmap_sem for
>> long time, so reading /proc/<pid>/cmdline may be blocked in
>> uninterruptible state for long time.
>> We already have killable version APIs for semaphore, here use down_read_killable()
>> to improve the responsiveness.
>>
> Rather than killable, we have patches that introduce down_read_unfair()
> variants for the files you've modified (cmdline and environ) as well as
> others (maps, numa_maps, smaps).

You mean you have such functionality used by google internally?

>
> When another thread is holding down_read() and there are queued
> down_write()'s, down_read_unfair() allows for grabbing the rwsem without
> queueing for it.  Additionally, when another thread is holding
> down_write(), down_read_unfair() allows for queueing in front of other
> threads trying to grab it for write as well.

It sounds the __unfair variant make the caller have chance to jump the 
gun to grab the semaphore before other waiters, right? But when a 
process holds the semaphore, i.e. mmap_sem, for a long time, it still 
has to sleep in uninterruptible state, right?

But, it seems __unfair variant may not be very helpful in this usecase. 
Reading /proc might be not that important to require any special care to 
grab the semaphore before other waiters. I just hope it doesn't sleep in 
uninterruptible state for a long time. If the user is not patient enough 
due to some reason, they can have a chance to abort.

>
> Ingo would know more about whether a variant like that in upstream Linux
> would be acceptable.
>
> Would you be interested in unfair variants instead of only addressing
> killable?

Yes, I'm although it still looks overkilling to me for reading /proc.

Thanks,
Yang