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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 91406C35246 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 08:17:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667462467B for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 08:17:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1580199438; bh=TEQGHVlM+iUtlNKv5J23BD/qcWDuX6te8q9DcipmMvg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=DDHKYNHjGIwf130gpvm1r0DH6yRO6tLpAe8lA95P/iod9BDskLNgyqx7Sgq6Aaqld OGALhRMqMmqSLeGODkfzAiFvQUru85fmE98o3W+buDrpkwoB3h090MgCfMvPdeVr04 9OD+/ITOrxmfU9HVwaJGBbfGZ+Fz85FJwc6W0NbE= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725963AbgA1IRR (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jan 2020 03:17:17 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com ([209.85.128.68]:35323 "EHLO mail-wm1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725848AbgA1IRR (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jan 2020 03:17:17 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id b2so1483809wma.0 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=XtxZDbjoeVAXn0Arr7+aEHD/9HRBev9fghJGa32LcmFXwl0bgtLcqB/tetrlGLoOMz +AtyRK14zPfHA2h9ZAdMy1bb31k8fvMKcNnHUd/ldHwi1Y1vrXmPFR48gl5sxoXcBwKk TeWjakO/wqPSbDpDvbZiHF7Fyqz80b7GWVRMQ8C3oDwHl9OIiR56+6rrsBK5rxTtwQ1G Iuu/O0mZZIVoDX8gQkspUG4NL/+hMGK2LhC+5dwZSlwFyFIwJvG9wl9LrnsLeW4BbzKR oOCRy2N36m1Vub5+xcts6GZ25Sbj2xK0UUqpLKiKX3GCJ/fVWZjOHKjP4uw1zDrubPPb Uu2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXzwlNj4liU9LuJ4n+EUR7Db6wczljNlW1V6NuqDO/MacpvRq4T 19PVuCNVL2Z9E2zDbt2TXew= 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> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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