Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Reply-To: xlpang@linux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcg: Fix memcg reclaim soft lockup
From:   Xunlei Pang <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
References: <1598426822-93737-1-git-send-email-xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20200826081102.GM22869@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <99efed0e-050a-e313-46ab-8fe6228839d5@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20200826110015.GO22869@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <5b22890d-190f-be1d-3be8-995765dbb957@linux.alibaba.com>
Message-ID: <0cf41b39-f039-7e53-ea80-9d5d0c784e73@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:54:30 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5b22890d-190f-be1d-3be8-995765dbb957@linux.alibaba.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2020/8/26 下午7:45, xunlei wrote:
> On 2020/8/26 下午7:00, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 26-08-20 18:41:18, xunlei wrote:
>>> On 2020/8/26 下午4:11, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Wed 26-08-20 15:27:02, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>>>>> We've met softlockup with "CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y", when
>>>>> the target memcg doesn't have any reclaimable memory.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any scenario when this happens or is this some sort of a
>>>> test case?
>>>
>>> It can happen on tiny guest scenarios.
>>
>> OK, you made me more curious. If this is a tiny guest and this is a hard
>> limit reclaim path then we should trigger an oom killer which should
>> kill the offender and that in turn bail out from the try_charge lopp
>> (see should_force_charge). So how come this repeats enough in your setup
>> that it causes soft lockups?
>>
> 
>     oom_status = mem_cgroup_oom(mem_over_limit, gfp_mask,
>                get_order(nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE));
>     switch (oom_status) {
>     case OOM_SUCCESS:
>         nr_retries = MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES;

Actually we can add "cond_resched()" here, but I think it's better to
have one at the memcg reclaim path to avoid other unexpected issues.

>         goto retry;
> 
> It retries here endlessly, because oom reaper has no cpu to schedule.
>