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;
Date:   Wed, 26 Aug 2020 13:00:15 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     xunlei <xlpang@linux.alibaba.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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcg: Fix memcg reclaim soft lockup
Message-ID: <20200826110015.GO22869@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1598426822-93737-1-git-send-email-xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20200826081102.GM22869@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <99efed0e-050a-e313-46ab-8fe6228839d5@linux.alibaba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <99efed0e-050a-e313-46ab-8fe6228839d5@linux.alibaba.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs