[PATCH] get rid of lru_add_drain_all() in munlock path
From: KOSAKI Motohiro
Date: Wed Nov 05 2008 - 19:14:29 EST
> > > Now, in the current upstream version of the unevictable mlocked pages
> > > patches, we just count any mlocked pages [vmstat] that make their way to
> > > free*page() instead of BUGging out, as we were doing earlier during
> > > development. So, maybe we can drop the lru_drain_add()s in the
> > > unevictable mlocked pages work and live with the occasional freed
> > > mlocked page, or mlocked page on the active/inactive lists to be dealt
> > > with by vmscan.
> >
> > hm, okey.
> > maybe, I was wrong.
> >
> > I'll make "dropping lru_add_drain_all()" patch soon.
> > I expect I need few days.
> > make the patch: 1 day
> > confirm by stress workload: 2-3 days
> >
> > because rik's original problem only happend on heavy wokload, I think.
>
> Indeed. It was an ad hoc test program [2 versions attached] written
> specifically to beat on COW of shared pages mlocked by parent then COWed
> by parent or child and unmapped explicitly or via exit. We were trying
> to find all the ways the we could end up freeing mlocked pages--and
> there were several. Most of these turned out to be genuine
> coding/design defects [as difficult as that may be to believe :-)], so
> tracking them down was worthwhile. And, I think that, in general,
> clearing a page's mlocked state and rescuing from the unevictable lru
> list on COW--to prevent the mlocked page from ending up mapped into some
> task's non-VM_LOCKED vma--is a good thing to strive for.
> Now, looking at the current code [28-rc1] in [__]clear_page_mlock():
> We've already cleared the PG_mlocked flag, we've decremented the mlocked
> pages stats, and we're just trying to rescue the page from the
> unevictable list to the in/active list. If we fail to isolate the page,
> then either some other task has it isolated and will return it to an
> appropriate lru or it resides in a pagevec heading for an in/active lru
> list. We don't use pagevec for unevictable list. Any other cases? If
> not, then we can probably dispense with the "try harder" logic--the
> lru_add_drain()--in __clear_page_mlock().
>
> Do you agree? Or have I missed something?
Yup.
you are perfectly right.
Honestly, I thought lazy rescue isn't so good because it cause statics difference of
# of mlocked pages and # of unevictalble pages in past time.
and, I tought i can avoid it.
but it is wrong.
I made its patch actually, but it introduce many and unnecessary messyness.
So, I believe simple lru_add_drain_all() dropping patch is better.
Again, you are right.
In these days, I've run stress workload and I confirm my patch doesn't
cause mlocked page leak.
this patch also solve Heiko and Kamalesh rtnl
circular dependency problem (I think).
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122460208308785&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=122586921407698&w=2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
lockdep warns about following message at boot time on one of my test machine.
Then, schedule_on_each_cpu() sholdn't be called when the task have mmap_sem.
Actually, lru_add_drain_all() exist to prevent the unevictalble pages stay on reclaimable lru list.
but currenct unevictable code can rescue unevictable pages although it stay on reclaimable list.
So removing is better.
In addition, this patch add lru_add_drain_all() to sys_mlock() and sys_mlockall().
it isn't must.
but it reduce the failure of moving to unevictable list.
its failure can rescue in vmscan later. but reducing is better.
Note, if above rescuing happend, the Mlocked and the Unevictable field mismatching happend in /proc/meminfo.
but it doesn't cause any real trouble.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ start here ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.28-rc2-mm1 #2
-------------------------------------------------------
lvm/1103 is trying to acquire lock:
(&cpu_hotplug.lock){--..}, at: [<c0130789>] get_online_cpus+0x29/0x50
but task is already holding lock:
(&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<c01878ae>] sys_mlockall+0x4e/0xb0
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #3 (&mm->mmap_sem){----}:
[<c0153da2>] check_noncircular+0x82/0x110
[<c0185e6a>] might_fault+0x4a/0xa0
[<c0156161>] validate_chain+0xb11/0x1070
[<c0185e6a>] might_fault+0x4a/0xa0
[<c0156923>] __lock_acquire+0x263/0xa10
[<c015714c>] lock_acquire+0x7c/0xb0 (*) grab mmap_sem
[<c0185e6a>] might_fault+0x4a/0xa0
[<c0185e9b>] might_fault+0x7b/0xa0
[<c0185e6a>] might_fault+0x4a/0xa0
[<c0294dd0>] copy_to_user+0x30/0x60
[<c01ae3ec>] filldir+0x7c/0xd0
[<c01e3a6a>] sysfs_readdir+0x11a/0x1f0 (*) grab sysfs_mutex
[<c01ae370>] filldir+0x0/0xd0
[<c01ae370>] filldir+0x0/0xd0
[<c01ae4c6>] vfs_readdir+0x86/0xa0 (*) grab i_mutex
[<c01ae75b>] sys_getdents+0x6b/0xc0
[<c010355a>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
-> #2 (sysfs_mutex){--..}:
[<c0153da2>] check_noncircular+0x82/0x110
[<c01e3d2c>] sysfs_addrm_start+0x2c/0xc0
[<c0156161>] validate_chain+0xb11/0x1070
[<c01e3d2c>] sysfs_addrm_start+0x2c/0xc0
[<c0156923>] __lock_acquire+0x263/0xa10
[<c015714c>] lock_acquire+0x7c/0xb0 (*) grab sysfs_mutex
[<c01e3d2c>] sysfs_addrm_start+0x2c/0xc0
[<c04f8b55>] mutex_lock_nested+0xa5/0x2f0
[<c01e3d2c>] sysfs_addrm_start+0x2c/0xc0
[<c01e3d2c>] sysfs_addrm_start+0x2c/0xc0
[<c01e3d2c>] sysfs_addrm_start+0x2c/0xc0
[<c01e422f>] create_dir+0x3f/0x90
[<c01e42a9>] sysfs_create_dir+0x29/0x50
[<c04faaf5>] _spin_unlock+0x25/0x40
[<c028f21d>] kobject_add_internal+0xcd/0x1a0
[<c028f37a>] kobject_set_name_vargs+0x3a/0x50
[<c028f41d>] kobject_init_and_add+0x2d/0x40
[<c019d4d2>] sysfs_slab_add+0xd2/0x180
[<c019d580>] sysfs_add_func+0x0/0x70
[<c019d5dc>] sysfs_add_func+0x5c/0x70 (*) grab slub_lock
[<c01400f2>] run_workqueue+0x172/0x200
[<c014008f>] run_workqueue+0x10f/0x200
[<c0140bd0>] worker_thread+0x0/0xf0
[<c0140c6c>] worker_thread+0x9c/0xf0
[<c0143c80>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x50
[<c0140bd0>] worker_thread+0x0/0xf0
[<c0143972>] kthread+0x42/0x70
[<c0143930>] kthread+0x0/0x70
[<c01042db>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x1c
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
-> #1 (slub_lock){----}:
[<c0153d2d>] check_noncircular+0xd/0x110
[<c04f650f>] slab_cpuup_callback+0x11f/0x1d0
[<c0156161>] validate_chain+0xb11/0x1070
[<c04f650f>] slab_cpuup_callback+0x11f/0x1d0
[<c015433d>] mark_lock+0x35d/0xd00
[<c0156923>] __lock_acquire+0x263/0xa10
[<c015714c>] lock_acquire+0x7c/0xb0
[<c04f650f>] slab_cpuup_callback+0x11f/0x1d0
[<c04f93a3>] down_read+0x43/0x80
[<c04f650f>] slab_cpuup_callback+0x11f/0x1d0 (*) grab slub_lock
[<c04f650f>] slab_cpuup_callback+0x11f/0x1d0
[<c04fd9ac>] notifier_call_chain+0x3c/0x70
[<c04f5454>] _cpu_up+0x84/0x110
[<c04f552b>] cpu_up+0x4b/0x70 (*) grab cpu_hotplug.lock
[<c06d1530>] kernel_init+0x0/0x170
[<c06d15e5>] kernel_init+0xb5/0x170
[<c06d1530>] kernel_init+0x0/0x170
[<c01042db>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x1c
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
-> #0 (&cpu_hotplug.lock){--..}:
[<c0155bff>] validate_chain+0x5af/0x1070
[<c040f7e0>] dev_status+0x0/0x50
[<c0156923>] __lock_acquire+0x263/0xa10
[<c015714c>] lock_acquire+0x7c/0xb0
[<c0130789>] get_online_cpus+0x29/0x50
[<c04f8b55>] mutex_lock_nested+0xa5/0x2f0
[<c0130789>] get_online_cpus+0x29/0x50
[<c0130789>] get_online_cpus+0x29/0x50
[<c017bc30>] lru_add_drain_per_cpu+0x0/0x10
[<c0130789>] get_online_cpus+0x29/0x50 (*) grab cpu_hotplug.lock
[<c0140cf2>] schedule_on_each_cpu+0x32/0xe0
[<c0187095>] __mlock_vma_pages_range+0x85/0x2c0
[<c0156945>] __lock_acquire+0x285/0xa10
[<c0188f09>] vma_merge+0xa9/0x1d0
[<c0187450>] mlock_fixup+0x180/0x200
[<c0187548>] do_mlockall+0x78/0x90 (*) grab mmap_sem
[<c01878e1>] sys_mlockall+0x81/0xb0
[<c010355a>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
other info that might help us debug this:
1 lock held by lvm/1103:
#0: (&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<c01878ae>] sys_mlockall+0x4e/0xb0
stack backtrace:
Pid: 1103, comm: lvm Not tainted 2.6.28-rc2-mm1 #2
Call Trace:
[<c01555fc>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x7c/0xd0
[<c0155bff>] validate_chain+0x5af/0x1070
[<c040f7e0>] dev_status+0x0/0x50
[<c0156923>] __lock_acquire+0x263/0xa10
[<c015714c>] lock_acquire+0x7c/0xb0
[<c0130789>] get_online_cpus+0x29/0x50
[<c04f8b55>] mutex_lock_nested+0xa5/0x2f0
[<c0130789>] get_online_cpus+0x29/0x50
[<c0130789>] get_online_cpus+0x29/0x50
[<c017bc30>] lru_add_drain_per_cpu+0x0/0x10
[<c0130789>] get_online_cpus+0x29/0x50
[<c0140cf2>] schedule_on_each_cpu+0x32/0xe0
[<c0187095>] __mlock_vma_pages_range+0x85/0x2c0
[<c0156945>] __lock_acquire+0x285/0xa10
[<c0188f09>] vma_merge+0xa9/0x1d0
[<c0187450>] mlock_fixup+0x180/0x200
[<c0187548>] do_mlockall+0x78/0x90
[<c01878e1>] sys_mlockall+0x81/0xb0
[<c010355a>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ end here ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/mlock.c | 16 ++++++----------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Index: b/mm/mlock.c
===================================================================
--- a/mm/mlock.c 2008-11-02 20:23:38.000000000 +0900
+++ b/mm/mlock.c 2008-11-02 21:00:21.000000000 +0900
@@ -66,14 +66,10 @@ void __clear_page_mlock(struct page *pag
putback_lru_page(page);
} else {
/*
- * Page not on the LRU yet. Flush all pagevecs and retry.
+ * We lost the race. the page already moved to evictable list.
*/
- lru_add_drain_all();
- if (!isolate_lru_page(page))
- putback_lru_page(page);
- else if (PageUnevictable(page))
+ if (PageUnevictable(page))
count_vm_event(UNEVICTABLE_PGSTRANDED);
-
}
}
@@ -187,8 +183,6 @@ static long __mlock_vma_pages_range(stru
if (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE)
gup_flags |= GUP_FLAGS_WRITE;
- lru_add_drain_all(); /* push cached pages to LRU */
-
while (nr_pages > 0) {
int i;
@@ -251,8 +245,6 @@ static long __mlock_vma_pages_range(stru
ret = 0;
}
- lru_add_drain_all(); /* to update stats */
-
return ret; /* count entire vma as locked_vm */
}
@@ -546,6 +538,8 @@ asmlinkage long sys_mlock(unsigned long
if (!can_do_mlock())
return -EPERM;
+ lru_add_drain_all(); /* flush pagevec */
+
down_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
len = PAGE_ALIGN(len + (start & ~PAGE_MASK));
start &= PAGE_MASK;
@@ -612,6 +606,8 @@ asmlinkage long sys_mlockall(int flags)
if (!can_do_mlock())
goto out;
+ lru_add_drain_all(); /* flush pagevec */
+
down_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
lock_limit = current->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_MEMLOCK].rlim_cur;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/