Re: [PATCH 3/4] sunrpc: if we're closing down a socket, clear memalloc on it first
From: Jeff Layton
Date: Thu Jun 04 2015 - 10:26:05 EST
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 14:08:30 +0100
Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:32:00AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 13:40:26 +0100
> > Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 08:03:12AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > We currently increment the memalloc_socks counter if we have a xprt that
> > > > is associated with a swapfile. That socket can be replaced however
> > > > during a reconnect event, and the memalloc_socks counter is never
> > > > decremented if that occurs.
> > > >
> > > > When tearing down a xprt socket, check to see if the xprt is set up for
> > > > swapping and sk_clear_memalloc before releasing the socket if so.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
> > >
> >
> > Thanks Mel,
> >
> > I should also mention that I see this warning pop when working with
> > swapfiles on NFS. This trace is with this patchset, but I see a similar
> > one without it:
> >
> > [ 74.232485] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [ 74.233354] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 754 at net/core/sock.c:364 sk_clear_memalloc+0x51/0x80()
> > [ 74.234790] Modules linked in: cts rpcsec_gss_krb5 nfsv4 dns_resolver nfs fscache xfs libcrc32c snd_hda_codec_generic snd_hda_intel snd_hda_controller snd_hda_codec snd_hda_core snd_hwdep snd_seq snd_seq_device nfsd snd_pcm snd_timer snd e1000 ppdev parport_pc joydev parport pvpanic soundcore floppy serio_raw i2c_piix4 pcspkr nfs_acl lockd virtio_balloon acpi_cpufreq auth_rpcgss grace sunrpc qxl drm_kms_helper ttm drm virtio_console virtio_blk virtio_pci ata_generic virtio_ring pata_acpi virtio
> > [ 74.243599] CPU: 2 PID: 754 Comm: swapoff Not tainted 4.1.0-rc6+ #5
> > [ 74.244635] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
> > [ 74.245546] 0000000000000000 0000000079e69e31 ffff8800d066bde8 ffffffff8179263d
> > [ 74.246786] 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ffff8800d066be28 ffffffff8109e6fa
> > [ 74.248175] 0000000000000000 ffff880118d48000 ffff8800d58f5c08 ffff880036e380a8
> > [ 74.249483] Call Trace:
> > [ 74.249872] [<ffffffff8179263d>] dump_stack+0x45/0x57
> > [ 74.250703] [<ffffffff8109e6fa>] warn_slowpath_common+0x8a/0xc0
> > [ 74.251655] [<ffffffff8109e82a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
> > [ 74.252585] [<ffffffff81661241>] sk_clear_memalloc+0x51/0x80
> > [ 74.253519] [<ffffffffa0116c72>] xs_disable_swap+0x42/0x80 [sunrpc]
> > [ 74.254537] [<ffffffffa01109de>] rpc_clnt_swap_deactivate+0x7e/0xc0 [sunrpc]
> > [ 74.255610] [<ffffffffa03e4fd7>] nfs_swap_deactivate+0x27/0x30 [nfs]
> > [ 74.256582] [<ffffffff811e99d4>] destroy_swap_extents+0x74/0x80
> > [ 74.257496] [<ffffffff811ecb52>] SyS_swapoff+0x222/0x5c0
> > [ 74.258318] [<ffffffff81023f27>] ? syscall_trace_leave+0xc7/0x140
> > [ 74.259253] [<ffffffff81798dae>] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x71
> > [ 74.260158] ---[ end trace 2530722966429f10 ]---
> >
> > ...that comes from this in sk_clear_memalloc:
> >
> > /*
> > * SOCK_MEMALLOC is allowed to ignore rmem limits to ensure forward
> > * progress of swapping. However, if SOCK_MEMALLOC is cleared while
> > * it has rmem allocations there is a risk that the user of the
> > * socket cannot make forward progress due to exceeding the rmem
> > * limits. By rights, sk_clear_memalloc() should only be called
> > * on sockets being torn down but warn and reset the accounting if
> > * that assumption breaks.
> > */
> > if (WARN_ON(sk->sk_forward_alloc))
> > sk_mem_reclaim(sk);
> >
> > Is it wrong to call sk_clear_memalloc on swapoff? Should we try to keep
> > it set up as a memalloc socket on the last swapoff and just wait until
> > the socket is being freed to clear it? If so, then maybe the right
> > thing to do is to call sk_clear_memalloc in __sk_free or somewhere
> > similar if it's set up for memalloc?
> >
>
> I think it is perfectly reasonable to remove the warning after your
> series. When I had it in mind, I was primarily thinking of the shutdown
> case and a single swap file. With your series applied, the disabling of
> swap is called at the correct time. So, something like this to tack on
> to the end of your series?
>
> ---8<---
> net, swap: Remove a warning and clarify why sk_mem_reclaim is required when deactivating swap
>
> Jeff Layton reported the following;
>
> [ 74.232485] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 74.233354] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 754 at net/core/sock.c:364 sk_clear_memalloc+0x51/0x80()
> [ 74.234790] Modules linked in: cts rpcsec_gss_krb5 nfsv4 dns_resolver nfs fscache xfs libcrc32c snd_hda_codec_generic snd_hda_intel snd_hda_controller snd_hda_codec snd_hda_core snd_hwdep snd_seq snd_seq_device nfsd snd_pcm snd_timer snd e1000 ppdev parport_pc joydev parport pvpanic soundcore floppy serio_raw i2c_piix4 pcspkr nfs_acl lockd virtio_balloon acpi_cpufreq auth_rpcgss grace sunrpc qxl drm_kms_helper ttm drm virtio_console virtio_blk virtio_pci ata_generic virtio_ring pata_acpi virtio
> [ 74.243599] CPU: 2 PID: 754 Comm: swapoff Not tainted 4.1.0-rc6+ #5
> [ 74.244635] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
> [ 74.245546] 0000000000000000 0000000079e69e31 ffff8800d066bde8 ffffffff8179263d
> [ 74.246786] 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ffff8800d066be28 ffffffff8109e6fa
> [ 74.248175] 0000000000000000 ffff880118d48000 ffff8800d58f5c08 ffff880036e380a8
> [ 74.249483] Call Trace:
> [ 74.249872] [<ffffffff8179263d>] dump_stack+0x45/0x57
> [ 74.250703] [<ffffffff8109e6fa>] warn_slowpath_common+0x8a/0xc0
> [ 74.251655] [<ffffffff8109e82a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
> [ 74.252585] [<ffffffff81661241>] sk_clear_memalloc+0x51/0x80
> [ 74.253519] [<ffffffffa0116c72>] xs_disable_swap+0x42/0x80 [sunrpc]
> [ 74.254537] [<ffffffffa01109de>] rpc_clnt_swap_deactivate+0x7e/0xc0 [sunrpc]
> [ 74.255610] [<ffffffffa03e4fd7>] nfs_swap_deactivate+0x27/0x30 [nfs]
> [ 74.256582] [<ffffffff811e99d4>] destroy_swap_extents+0x74/0x80
> [ 74.257496] [<ffffffff811ecb52>] SyS_swapoff+0x222/0x5c0
> [ 74.258318] [<ffffffff81023f27>] ? syscall_trace_leave+0xc7/0x140
> [ 74.259253] [<ffffffff81798dae>] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x71
> [ 74.260158] ---[ end trace 2530722966429f10 ]---
>
> The warning in question was unnecessary but with Jeff's series the rules
> are also clearer. This patch removes the warning and updates the comment
> to explain why sk_mem_reclaim() may still be called.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/core/sock.c | 12 +++++-------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> index 71e3e5f1eaa0..1ebf706b5847 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> @@ -354,14 +354,12 @@ void sk_clear_memalloc(struct sock *sk)
>
> /*
> * SOCK_MEMALLOC is allowed to ignore rmem limits to ensure forward
> - * progress of swapping. However, if SOCK_MEMALLOC is cleared while
> - * it has rmem allocations there is a risk that the user of the
> - * socket cannot make forward progress due to exceeding the rmem
> - * limits. By rights, sk_clear_memalloc() should only be called
> - * on sockets being torn down but warn and reset the accounting if
> - * that assumption breaks.
> + * progress of swapping. SOCK_MEMALLOC may be cleared while
> + * it has rmem allocations due to the last swapfile being deactivated
> + * but there is a risk that the socket is unusable due to exceeding
> + * the rmem limits. Reclaim the reserves and obey rmem limits again.
> */
> - if (WARN_ON(sk->sk_forward_alloc))
> + if (sk->sk_forward_alloc)
> sk_mem_reclaim(sk);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sk_clear_memalloc);
Sure, sounds reasonable. If I need to do a respin of the series, I'll
roll this into it. Otherwise you or I can just send it as a separate
patch afterward.
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/