• KOSAKI Motohiro's avatar
    vmscan: all_unreclaimable() use zone->all_unreclaimable as a name · 929bea7c
    KOSAKI Motohiro authored
    all_unreclaimable check in direct reclaim has been introduced at 2.6.19
    by following commit.
    
    	2006 Sep 25; commit 408d8544; oom: use unreclaimable info
    
    And it went through strange history. firstly, following commit broke
    the logic unintentionally.
    
    	2008 Apr 29; commit a41f24ea; page allocator: smarter retry of
    				      costly-order allocations
    
    Two years later, I've found obvious meaningless code fragment and
    restored original intention by following commit.
    
    	2010 Jun 04; commit bb21c7ce; vmscan: fix do_try_to_free_pages()
    				      return value when priority==0
    
    But, the logic didn't works when 32bit highmem system goes hibernation
    and Minchan slightly changed the algorithm and fixed it .
    
    	2010 Sep 22: commit d1908362: vmscan: check all_unreclaimable
    				      in direct reclaim path
    
    But, recently, Andrey Vagin found the new corner case. Look,
    
    	struct zone {
    	  ..
    	        int                     all_unreclaimable;
    	  ..
    	        unsigned long           pages_scanned;
    	  ..
    	}
    
    zone->all_unreclaimable and zone->pages_scanned are neigher atomic
    variables nor protected by lock.  Therefore zones can become a state of
    zone->page_scanned=0 and zone->all_unreclaimable=1.  In this case, current
    all_unreclaimable() return false even though zone->all_unreclaimabe=1.
    
    This resulted in the kernel hanging up when executing a loop of the form
    
    1. fork
    2. mmap
    3. touch memory
    4. read memory
    5. munmmap
    
    as described in
    http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1348725#1348725
    
    Is this ignorable minor issue?  No.  Unfortunately, x86 has very small dma
    zone and it become zone->all_unreclamble=1 easily.  and if it become
    all_unreclaimable=1, it never restore all_unreclaimable=0.  Why?  if
    all_unreclaimable=1, vmscan only try DEF_PRIORITY reclaim and
    a-few-lru-pages>>DEF_PRIORITY always makes 0.  that mean no page scan at
    all!
    
    Eventually, oom-killer never works on such systems.  That said, we can't
    use zone->pages_scanned for this purpose.  This patch restore
    all_unreclaimable() use zone->all_unreclaimable as old.  and in addition,
    to add oom_killer_disabled check to avoid reintroduce the issue of commit
    d1908362 ("vmscan: check all_unreclaimable in direct reclaim path").
    Reported-by: default avatarAndrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
    Signed-off-by: default avatarKOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
    Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
    Reviewed-by: default avatarMinchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
    Reviewed-by: default avatarKAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
    Acked-by: default avatarDavid Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
    Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
    Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
    Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
    929bea7c
vmscan.c 92.4 KB