From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752603AbcKUB30 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Nov 2016 20:29:26 -0500 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([58.251.152.64]:20171 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751088AbcKUB3W (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Nov 2016 20:29:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: fix the OOM problem of huge IP abnormal packet traffic To: , , Eric Dumazet References: <635ca612-370c-b6e4-7f2a-cba702dd0c4a@huawei.com> <20161118130144.GO3612@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <809d327e-d4e2-51a5-bbfd-9ff143ee55da@huawei.com> <20161119082209.GC3612@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161121001347.GA27732@linux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: , , , , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" From: Ding Tianhong Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:28:25 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161121001347.GA27732@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.23.32] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2016/11/21 8:13, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:22:09AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 03:50:32PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2016/11/18 21:01, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 08:40:09PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >>>>> The commit bedc196915 ("rcu: Fix soft lockup for rcu_nocb_kthread") >>>>> will introduce a new problem that when huge IP abnormal packet arrived, >>>>> it may cause OOM and break the kernel, just like this: >>>>> >>>>> [ 79.441538] mlx4_en: eth5: Leaving promiscuous mode steering mode:2 >>>>> [ 100.067032] ksoftirqd/0: page allocation failure: order:0, mode:0x120 >>>>> [ 100.067038] CPU: 0 PID: 3 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Tainted: G OE ----V------- 3.10.0-327.28.3.28.x86_64 #1 >>>>> [ 100.067039] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.9.1-0-gb3ef39f-20161018_184732-HGH1000003483 04/01/2014 >>>>> [ 100.067041] 0000000000000120 00000000b080d798 ffff8802afd5b968 ffffffff81638cb9 >>>>> [ 100.067045] ffff8802afd5b9f8 ffffffff81171380 0000000000000010 0000000000000000 >>>>> [ 100.067048] ffff8802befd8000 00000000ffffffff 0000000000000001 00000000b080d798 >>>>> [ 100.067050] Call Trace: >>>>> [ 100.067057] [] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b >>>>> [ 100.067062] [] warn_alloc_failed+0x110/0x180 >>>>> [ 100.067066] [] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x9b6/0xba0 >>>>> [ 100.067070] [] ? skb_add_rx_frag+0x90/0xb0 >>>>> [ 100.067075] [] alloc_pages_current+0xaa/0x170 >>>>> [ 100.067080] [] mlx4_alloc_pages.isra.24+0x40/0x170 [mlx4_en] >>>>> [ 100.067083] [] mlx4_en_alloc_frags+0xdc/0x220 [mlx4_en] >>>>> [ 100.067086] [] ? __netif_receive_skb+0x18/0x60 >>>>> [ 100.067088] [] ? netif_receive_skb+0x40/0xc0 >>>>> [ 100.067092] [] mlx4_en_process_rx_cq+0x5f1/0xec0 [mlx4_en] >>>>> [ 100.067095] [] ? list_del+0xd/0x30 >>>>> [ 100.067098] [] ? __napi_complete+0x1f/0x30 >>>>> [ 100.067101] [] mlx4_en_poll_rx_cq+0x9f/0x170 [mlx4_en] >>>>> [ 100.067103] [] net_rx_action+0x152/0x240 >>>>> [ 100.067107] [] __do_softirq+0xef/0x280 >>>>> [ 100.067109] [] run_ksoftirqd+0x30/0x50 >>>>> [ 100.067114] [] smpboot_thread_fn+0xff/0x1a0 >>>>> [ 100.067117] [] ? schedule+0x29/0x70 >>>>> [ 100.067120] [] ? lg_double_unlock+0x90/0x90 >>>>> [ 100.067122] [] kthread+0xcf/0xe0 >>>>> [ 100.067124] [] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140 >>>>> [ 100.067127] [] ret_from_fork+0x58/0x90 >>>>> [ 100.067129] [] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140 >>>>> >>>>> ================================cut here===================================== >>>>> >>>>> The reason is that the huge abnormal IP packet will be received to net stack >>>>> and be dropped finally by dst_release, and the dst_release would use the rcuos >>>>> callback-offload kthread to free the packet, but the cond_resched_rcu_qs() will >>>>> calling do_softirq() to receive more and more IP abnormal packets which will be >>>>> throw into the RCU callbacks again later, the number of received packet is much >>>>> greater than the number of packets freed, it will exhaust the memory and then OOM, >>>>> so don't try to process any pending softirqs in the rcuos callback-offload kthread >>>>> is a more effective solution. >>>> >>>> OK, but we could still have softirqs processed by the grace-period kthread >>>> as a result of any number of other events. So this change might reduce >>>> the probability of this problem, but it doesn't eliminate it. >>>> >>>> How huge are these huge IP packets? Is the underlying problem that they >>>> are too large to use the memory-allocator fastpaths? >>>> >>>> Thanx, Paul >>>> >>> >>> I use the 40G mellanox NiC to receive packet, and the testgine could send Mac abnormal packet and >>> IP abnormal packet to full speed. >>> >>> The Mac abnormal packet would be dropped at low level and not be received to net stack, >>> but the IP abnormal packet will introduce this problem, every packet will looks as new dst first and >>> release later by dst_release because it is meaningless. >>> >>> dst_release->call_rcu(&dst->rcu_head, dst_destroy_rcu); >>> >>> so all packet will be freed until the rcuos callback-offload kthread processing, it will be a infinite loop >>> if huge packet is coming because the do_softirq will load more and more packet to the rcuos processing kthread, >>> so I still could not find a better way to fix this, btw, it is really hard to say the driver use too large memory-allocater >>> fastpaths, there is no memory leak and the Ixgbe may meet the same problem too. > > And following up on my fastpath point -- from what I can see, one > big effect of the large invalid packets is that they push processing > off of a number of fastpaths. If these packets could be rejected with > less per-packet processing, I bet that things would work much better. > > Thanx, Paul Yes, and I found the WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled()) will be triggered if use _local_bh_enable here, so I think we could ask some help from Eric and David how to reject the huge number packets. Thanks Ding > >> The overall effect of these two patches is to move from enabling bh >> (and processing recent softirqs) to enabling bh without processing >> recent softirqs. Is this really the correct way to solve this problem? >> What about this solution is avoiding re-introducing the original >> softlockups? Have you talked to the networking guys about this issue? >> >> Thanx, Paul >> >>> Thanks. >>> Ding >>> >>> >>>>> Fix commit bedc196915 ("rcu: Fix soft lockup for rcu_nocb_kthread") >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong >>>>> --- >>>>> kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 3 +-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h >>>>> index 85c5a88..760c3b5 100644 >>>>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h >>>>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h >>>>> @@ -2172,8 +2172,7 @@ static int rcu_nocb_kthread(void *arg) >>>>> if (__rcu_reclaim(rdp->rsp->name, list)) >>>>> cl++; >>>>> c++; >>>>> - local_bh_enable(); >>>>> - cond_resched_rcu_qs(); >>>>> + _local_bh_enable(); >>>>> list = next; >>>>> } >>>>> trace_rcu_batch_end(rdp->rsp->name, c, !!list, 0, 0, 1); >>>>> -- >>>>> 1.9.0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>> > > > . >