Re: [PATCH -mm 2/2] memcg: fix css reference leak and endless loopin mem_cgroup_iter
From: Hugh Dickins
Date: Tue Jan 21 2014 - 16:19:22 EST
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:45:43 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 19f39402864e (memcg: simplify mem_cgroup_iter) has reorganized
> > mem_cgroup_iter code in order to simplify it. A part of that change was
> > dropping an optimization which didn't call css_tryget on the root of
> > the walked tree. The patch however didn't change the css_put part in
> > mem_cgroup_iter which excludes root.
> > This wasn't an issue at the time because __mem_cgroup_iter_next bailed
> > out for root early without taking a reference as cgroup iterators
> > (css_next_descendant_pre) didn't visit root themselves.
> > Nevertheless cgroup iterators have been reworked to visit root by
> > bd8815a6d802 (cgroup: make css_for_each_descendant() and friends include
> > the origin css in the iteration) when the root bypass have been dropped
> > in __mem_cgroup_iter_next. This means that css_put is not called for
> > root and so css along with mem_cgroup and other cgroup internal object
> > tied by css lifetime are never freed.
> > Fix the issue by reintroducing root check in __mem_cgroup_iter_next
> > and do not take css reference for it.
> > This reference counting magic protects us also from another issue, an
> > endless loop reported by Hugh Dickins when reclaim races with root
> > removal and css_tryget called by iterator internally would fail. There
> > would be no other nodes to visit so __mem_cgroup_iter_next would return
> > NULL and mem_cgroup_iter would interpret it as "start looping from root
> > again" and so mem_cgroup_iter would loop forever internally.
> I grabbed these two patches but I will sit on them for a week or so,
> pending review-n-test.
Thank you, yes, I'm about to give them more testing.
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # mem_leak part 3.12+
> What does this mean?
It's certainly a confusing comment.
I suggest just deleting the "mem_leak part ": Michal isn't referring to
any two parts of the patch itself, but to parts of his commit comment;
but it's still unclear what he's claiming.
We do have a confusing situation. The hang goes back to 3.10 but takes
two different forms, because of intervening changes: in 3.10 and 3.11
mem_cgroup_iter repeatedly returns root memcg to its caller, in 3.12 and
3.13 mem_cgroup_iter repeatedly gets NULL memcg from mem_cgroup_iter_next
and cannot return to its caller.
Patch 1/2 is what's needed to fix 3.10 and 3.11 (and applies correctly
to 3.11, but will have to be rediffed for 3.10 because of rearrangement
in between). Patch 2/2 is what's needed to fix 3.12 and 3.13 (but applies
correctly to neither of them because it's diffed on top of my CSS_ONLINE
fix). Patch 1/2 is correct but unnecessary in 3.12 and 3.13: I'm unclear
whether Michal is claiming that it would also fix the hang in 3.12 and
3.13 if we didn't have 2/2: I doubt that, and haven't tested that.
Given how Michal has diffed this patch on top of my CSS_ONLINE one
it would be helpful if you could mark that one also for stable 3.12+,
to save us from having to rediff this one for stable. We don't have
a concrete example of a problem it solves in the vanilla kernel, but
it makes more sense to include it than to exclude it.
(You would be right to point out that the CSS_ONLINE one fixes
something that goes back to 3.10: I'm saying 3.12+ because I'm not
motivated to rediff it for 3.10 and 3.11 when there's nothing to
go on top; but that's not a very good reason to lie - overrule me.)
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/