From 15f570bf3d13aa94a97234538a5110d18df03aa3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michal Hocko Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:03:31 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc: PF_WQ_WORKER threads must sleep at should_reclaim_retry() Tetsuo Handa has reported that it is possible to bypass the short sleep for PF_WQ_WORKER threads which was introduced by commit 373ccbe5927034b5 ("mm, vmstat: allow WQ concurrency to discover memory reclaim doesn't make any progress") and lock up the system if OOM. The primary reason is that WQ_MEM_RECLAIM WQs are not guaranteed to run even when they have a rescuer available. Those workers might be essential for reclaim to make a forward progress, however. If we are too unlucky all the allocations requests can get stuck waiting for a WQ_MEM_RECLAIM work item and the system is essentially stuck in an OOM condition without much hope to move on. Tetsuo has seen the reclaim stuck on drain_local_pages_wq or xlog_cil_push_work (xfs). There might be others. Since should_reclaim_retry() should be a natural reschedule point, let's do the short sleep for PF_WQ_WORKER threads unconditionally in order to guarantee that other pending work items are started. This will workaround this problem and it is less fragile than hunting down when the sleep is missed. Having a single sleeping point is more robust. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: reflow comment to 80 cols to save a couple of lines] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180827135101.15700-1-mhocko@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko Debugged-by: Tetsuo Handa Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Vladimir Davydov Cc: David Rientjes Cc: Tejun Heo Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- mm/page_alloc.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c index e2ef1c17942f..7e2fb6e38f34 100644 --- a/mm/page_alloc.c +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c @@ -3922,6 +3922,7 @@ should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order, { struct zone *zone; struct zoneref *z; + bool ret = false; /* * Costly allocations might have made a progress but this doesn't mean @@ -3985,25 +3986,24 @@ should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order, } } - /* - * Memory allocation/reclaim might be called from a WQ - * context and the current implementation of the WQ - * concurrency control doesn't recognize that - * a particular WQ is congested if the worker thread is - * looping without ever sleeping. Therefore we have to - * do a short sleep here rather than calling - * cond_resched(). - */ - if (current->flags & PF_WQ_WORKER) - schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1); - else - cond_resched(); - - return true; + ret = true; + goto out; } } - return false; +out: + /* + * Memory allocation/reclaim might be called from a WQ context and the + * current implementation of the WQ concurrency control doesn't + * recognize that a particular WQ is congested if the worker thread is + * looping without ever sleeping. Therefore we have to do a short sleep + * here rather than calling cond_resched(). + */ + if (current->flags & PF_WQ_WORKER) + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1); + else + cond_resched(); + return ret; } static inline bool -- 2.30.2