Re: [mm] [PATCH 3/4] Memory cgroup hierarchical reclaim (v4)

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:14:47 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:31:25 +0530, Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Daisuke Nishimura wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, trying to hold cgroup_mutex at reclaim causes dead lock.
> > > 
> > > For example, when attaching a task to some cpuset directory(memory_migrate=on),
> > > 
> > >     cgroup_tasks_write (hold cgroup_mutex)
> > >         attach_task_by_pid
> > >             cgroup_attach_task
> > >                 cpuset_attach
> > >                     cpuset_migrate_mm
> > >                         :
> > >                         unmap_and_move
> > >                             mem_cgroup_prepare_migration
> > >                                 mem_cgroup_try_charge
> > >                                     mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim
> > > 
> > 
> > Did lockdep complain about it?
> > 
> I haven't understood lockdep so well, but I got logs like this:
> 
> ===
> INFO: task move.sh:17710 blocked for more than 480 seconds.
> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> move.sh       D ffff88010e1c76c0     0 17710  17597
>  ffff8800bd9edf00 0000000000000046 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
>  ffff8803afbc0000 ffff8800bd9ee270 0000000e00000000 000000010a54459c
>  ffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffff 7fffffffffffffff
> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff802ae9f0>] mem_cgroup_get_first_node+0x29/0x8a
>  [<ffffffff804cb357>] mutex_lock_nested+0x180/0x2a2
>  [<ffffffff802ae9f0>] mem_cgroup_get_first_node+0x29/0x8a
>  [<ffffffff802ae9f0>] mem_cgroup_get_first_node+0x29/0x8a
>  [<ffffffff802aed9c>] __mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x27a/0x2de
>  [<ffffffff802afdfd>] mem_cgroup_prepare_migration+0x6c/0xa5
>  [<ffffffff802ad97f>] migrate_pages+0x10c/0x4a0
>  [<ffffffff802ad9c8>] migrate_pages+0x155/0x4a0
>  [<ffffffff802a14cb>] new_node_page+0x0/0x2f
>  [<ffffffff802a1adb>] check_range+0x300/0x325
>  [<ffffffff802a2374>] do_migrate_pages+0x1a5/0x1f1
>  [<ffffffff8026d272>] cpuset_migrate_mm+0x30/0x93
>  [<ffffffff8026d29c>] cpuset_migrate_mm+0x5a/0x93
>  [<ffffffff8026df41>] cpuset_attach+0x93/0xa6
>  [<ffffffff8026ae1b>] cgroup_attach_task+0x395/0x3e1
>  [<ffffffff8026af61>] cgroup_tasks_write+0xfa/0x11d
>  [<ffffffff8026aea0>] cgroup_tasks_write+0x39/0x11d
>  [<ffffffff8026b5aa>] cgroup_file_write+0xef/0x216
>  [<ffffffff802b2968>] vfs_write+0xad/0x136
>  [<ffffffff802b2dfe>] sys_write+0x45/0x6e
>  [<ffffffff8020bdab>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> INFO: lockdep is turned off.
> ===
> 
> And other processes trying to hold cgroup_mutex are also stuck.
> 
> > 1. We could probably move away from cgroup_mutex to a memory controller specific
> > mutex.
> > 2. We could give up cgroup_mutex before migrate_mm, since it seems like we'll
> > hold the cgroup lock for long and holding it during reclaim will definitely be
> > visible to users trying to create/delete nodes.
> > 
> > I prefer to do (2), I'll look at the code more closely
> > 
> I basically agree, but I think we should also consider mpol_rebind_mm.
> 
> mpol_rebind_mm, which can be called from cpuset_attach, does down_write(mm->mmap_sem),
> which means down_write(mm->mmap_sem) can be called under cgroup_mutex.
> OTOH, page fault path does down_read(mm->mmap_sem) and can call mem_cgroup_try_charge,
> which means mutex_lock(cgroup_mutex) can be called under down_read(mm->mmap_sem).
> 

What's status of this problem ? fixed or not yet ?
Sorry for failing to track paches.

Thanks,
-Kame


> > > I think similar problem can also happen when removing memcg's directory.
> > > 
> > 
> > Why removing a directory? memcg (now) marks the directory as obsolete and we
> > check for obsolete directories and get/put references.
> > 
> I don't think so.
>     
>     mem_cgroup_pre_destroy (make mem->obsolete = 1)
>         mem_cgroup_force_empty(mem, **FALSE**)
>             mem_cgroup_force_empty_list
>                 mem_cgroup_move_parent
>                     __mem_cgroup_try_charge
> 
> hmm, but looking more closely, cgroup_call_pre_destroy is called
> outside of cgroup_mutex, so this problem doesn't happen at rmdir probably.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Daisuke Nishimura.
> 

--
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/