Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] mm: fix OOMs for binding workloads to movable zone only node

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 11/5/20 1:08 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 05-11-20 09:40:28, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > 
> > > Could you be more specific? This sounds like a bug. Allocations
> > > shouldn't spill over to a node which is not in the cpuset. There are few
> > > exceptions like IRQ context but that shouldn't happen regurarly.
> >
> > I mean when the docker starts, it will spawn many processes which obey
> > the mem binding set, and they have some kernel page requests, which got
> > successfully allocated, like the following callstack:
> >
> > 	[  567.044953] CPU: 1 PID: 2021 Comm: runc:[1:CHILD] Tainted: G        W I       5.9.0-rc8+ #6
> > 	[  567.044956] Hardware name:  /NUC6i5SYB, BIOS SYSKLi35.86A.0051.2016.0804.1114 08/04/2016
> > 	[  567.044958] Call Trace:
> > 	[  567.044972]  dump_stack+0x74/0x9a
> > 	[  567.044978]  __alloc_pages_nodemask.cold+0x22/0xe5
> > 	[  567.044986]  alloc_pages_current+0x87/0xe0
> > 	[  567.044991]  allocate_slab+0x2e5/0x4f0
> > 	[  567.044996]  ___slab_alloc+0x380/0x5d0
> > 	[  567.045021]  __slab_alloc+0x20/0x40
> > 	[  567.045025]  kmem_cache_alloc+0x2a0/0x2e0
> > 	[  567.045033]  mqueue_alloc_inode+0x1a/0x30
> > 	[  567.045041]  alloc_inode+0x22/0xa0
> > 	[  567.045045]  new_inode_pseudo+0x12/0x60
> > 	[  567.045049]  new_inode+0x17/0x30
> > 	[  567.045052]  mqueue_get_inode+0x45/0x3b0
> > 	[  567.045060]  mqueue_fill_super+0x41/0x70
> > 	[  567.045067]  vfs_get_super+0x7f/0x100
> > 	[  567.045074]  get_tree_keyed+0x1d/0x20
> > 	[  567.045080]  mqueue_get_tree+0x1c/0x20
> > 	[  567.045086]  vfs_get_tree+0x2a/0xc0
> > 	[  567.045092]  fc_mount+0x13/0x50
> > 	[  567.045099]  mq_create_mount+0x92/0xe0
> > 	[  567.045102]  mq_init_ns+0x3b/0x50
> > 	[  567.045106]  copy_ipcs+0x10a/0x1b0
> > 	[  567.045113]  create_new_namespaces+0xa6/0x2b0
> > 	[  567.045118]  unshare_nsproxy_namespaces+0x5a/0xb0
> > 	[  567.045124]  ksys_unshare+0x19f/0x360
> > 	[  567.045129]  __x64_sys_unshare+0x12/0x20
> > 	[  567.045135]  do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
> > 	[  567.045143]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> >
> > For it, the __alloc_pages_nodemask() will first try process's targed
> > nodemask(unmovable node here), and there is no availabe zone, so it
> > goes with the NULL nodemask, and get a page in the slowpath.
>
> OK, I see your point now. I was not aware of the slab allocator not
> following cpusets. Sounds like a bug to me.

SLAB and SLUB seem to not care about cpusets in the fast path. But this stack 
shows that it went all the way to the page allocator, so the cpusets should have 
been obeyed there at least.