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:   Mon, 21 Sep 2020 18:12:05 +0200
From:   Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To:     Julius Hemanth Pitti <jpitti@cisco.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, xlpang@linux.alibaba.com,
        mhocko@suse.com, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, ktkhai@virtuozzo.com,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xe-linux-external@cisco.com,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH stable v5.8] mm: memcg: fix memcg reclaim soft lockup
Message-ID: <20200921161205.GC1096614@kroah.com>
References: <20200918011913.57159-1-jpitti@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200918011913.57159-1-jpitti@cisco.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 06:19:13PM -0700, Julius Hemanth Pitti wrote:
> From: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>
> 
> commit e3336cab2579012b1e72b5265adf98e2d6e244ad upstream.
> 
> We've met softlockup with "CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y", when the target memcg
> doesn't have any reclaimable memory.
> 
> It can be easily reproduced as below:
> 
>   watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 111s![memcg_test:2204]
>   CPU: 0 PID: 2204 Comm: memcg_test Not tainted 5.9.0-rc2+ #12
>   Call Trace:
>     shrink_lruvec+0x49f/0x640
>     shrink_node+0x2a6/0x6f0
>     do_try_to_free_pages+0xe9/0x3e0
>     try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages+0xef/0x1f0
>     try_charge+0x2c1/0x750
>     mem_cgroup_charge+0xd7/0x240
>     __add_to_page_cache_locked+0x2fd/0x370
>     add_to_page_cache_lru+0x4a/0xc0
>     pagecache_get_page+0x10b/0x2f0
>     filemap_fault+0x661/0xad0
>     ext4_filemap_fault+0x2c/0x40
>     __do_fault+0x4d/0xf9
>     handle_mm_fault+0x1080/0x1790
> 
> It only happens on our 1-vcpu instances, because there's no chance for
> oom reaper to run to reclaim the to-be-killed process.
> 
> Add a cond_resched() at the upper shrink_node_memcgs() to solve this
> issue, this will mean that we will get a scheduling point for each memcg
> in the reclaimed hierarchy without any dependency on the reclaimable
> memory in that memcg thus making it more predictable.
> 
> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Acked-by: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1598495549-67324-1-git-send-email-xlpang@linux.alibaba.com
> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Fixes: b0dedc49a2da ("mm/vmscan.c: iterate only over charged shrinkers during memcg shrink_slab()")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Julius Hemanth Pitti <jpitti@cisco.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

The Fixes: tag you show here goes back to 4.19, can you provide a 4.19.y
and 5.4.y version of this as well?

thanks,

greg k-h