Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:54:25 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg, oom: be careful about races when warning about no
 reclaimable task
Message-ID: <20180807205425.GA5928@cmpxchg.org>
References: <20180807072553.14941-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <20180807200247.GA4251@cmpxchg.org>
 <20180807202332.GK10003@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180807202332.GK10003@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 10:23:32PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 07-08-18 16:02:47, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:25:53AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > > 
> > > "memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the charge path" has added a
> > > warning triggered when the oom killer cannot find any eligible task
> > > and so there is no way to reclaim the oom memcg under its hard limit.
> > > Further charges for such a memcg are forced and therefore the hard limit
> > > isolation is weakened.
> > > 
> > > The current warning is however too eager to trigger  even when we are not
> > > really hitting the above condition. Syzbot[1] and Greg Thelen have noticed
> > > that we can hit this condition even when there is still oom victim
> > > pending. E.g. the following race is possible:
> > > 
> > > memcg has two tasks taskA, taskB.
> > > 
> > > CPU1 (taskA)			CPU2			CPU3 (taskB)
> > > try_charge
> > >   mem_cgroup_out_of_memory				try_charge
> > >       select_bad_process(taskB)
> > >       oom_kill_process		oom_reap_task
> > > 				# No real memory reaped
> > >     				  			  mem_cgroup_out_of_memory
> > > 				# set taskB -> MMF_OOM_SKIP
> > >   # retry charge
> > >   mem_cgroup_out_of_memory
> > >     oom_lock						    oom_lock
> > >     select_bad_process(self)
> > >     oom_kill_process(self)
> > >     oom_unlock
> > > 							    # no eligible task
> > > 
> > > In fact syzbot test triggered this situation by placing multiple tasks
> > > into a memcg with hard limit set to 0. So no task really had any memory
> > > charged to the memcg
> > > 
> > > : Memory cgroup stats for /ile0: cache:0KB rss:0KB rss_huge:0KB shmem:0KB mapped_file:0KB dirty:0KB writeback:0KB swap:0KB inactive_anon:0KB active_anon:0KB inactive_file:0KB active_file:0KB unevictable:0KB
> > > : Tasks state (memory values in pages):
> > > : [  pid  ]   uid  tgid total_vm      rss pgtables_bytes swapents oom_score_adj name
> > > : [   6569]     0  6562     9427        1    53248        0             0 syz-executor0
> > > : [   6576]     0  6576     9426        0    61440        0             0 syz-executor6
> > > : [   6578]     0  6578     9426      534    61440        0             0 syz-executor4
> > > : [   6579]     0  6579     9426        0    57344        0             0 syz-executor5
> > > : [   6582]     0  6582     9426        0    61440        0             0 syz-executor7
> > > : [   6584]     0  6584     9426        0    57344        0             0 syz-executor1
> > > 
> > > so in principle there is indeed nothing reclaimable in this memcg and
> > > this looks like a misconfiguration. On the other hand we can clearly
> > > kill all those tasks so it is a bit early to warn and scare users. Do
> > > that by checking that the current is the oom victim and bypass the
> > > warning then. The victim is allowed to force charge and terminate to
> > > release its temporal charge along the way.
> > > 
> > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/0000000000005e979605729c1564@google.com
> > > Fixes: "memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the charge path"
> > > Noticed-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
> > > Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+bab151e82a4e973fa325@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > > ---
> > >  mm/memcontrol.c | 3 ++-
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > index 4603ad75c9a9..1b6eed1bc404 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > @@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ static enum oom_status mem_cgroup_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t mask, int
> > >  		return OOM_ASYNC;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	if (mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(memcg, mask, order))
> > > +	if (mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(memcg, mask, order) ||
> > > +			tsk_is_oom_victim(current))
> > >  		return OOM_SUCCESS;
> > >  
> > >  	WARN(1,"Memory cgroup charge failed because of no reclaimable memory! "
> > 
> > This is really ugly. :(
> > 
> > If that check is only there to suppress the warning when the limit is
> > 0, this should really be a separate branch around the warning, with a
> > fat comment that this is a ridiculous cornercase, and not look like it
> > is an essential part of the memcg reclaim/oom process.
> 
> I do not mind having it in a separate branch. Btw. this is not just about
> hard limit set to 0. Similar can happen anytime we are getting out of
> oom victims. The likelihood goes up with the remote memcg charging
> merged recently.

What the global OOM killer does in that situation is dump the header
anyway:

	/* Found nothing?!?! Either we hang forever, or we panic. */
	if (!oc->chosen && !is_sysrq_oom(oc) && !is_memcg_oom(oc)) {
		dump_header(oc, NULL);
		panic("Out of memory and no killable processes...\n");
	}

I think that would make sense here as well - without the panic,
obviously, but we can add our own pr_err() line following the header.

That gives us the exact memory situation of the cgroup and who is
trying to allocate and from what context, but in a format that is
known to users without claiming right away that it's a kernel issue.