Message ID | 20241220103123.3677988-1-chenridong@huaweicloud.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [v2] memcg: fix soft lockup in the OOM process | expand |
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 10:31:23 +0000 Chen Ridong <chenridong@huaweicloud.com> wrote: > From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@huawei.com> > > A soft lockup issue was found in the product with about 56,000 tasks were > in the OOM cgroup, it was traversing them when the soft lockup was > triggered. > > ... > > This is because thousands of processes are in the OOM cgroup, it takes a > long time to traverse all of them. As a result, this lead to soft lockup > in the OOM process. > > To fix this issue, call 'cond_resched' in the 'mem_cgroup_scan_tasks' > function per 1000 iterations. For global OOM, call > 'touch_softlockup_watchdog' per 1000 iterations to avoid this issue. > > ... > > --- a/include/linux/oom.h > +++ b/include/linux/oom.h > @@ -14,6 +14,13 @@ struct notifier_block; > struct mem_cgroup; > struct task_struct; > > +/* When it traverses for long time, to prevent softlockup, call > + * cond_resched/touch_softlockup_watchdog very 1000 iterations. > + * The 1000 value is not exactly right, it's used to mitigate the overhead > + * of cond_resched/touch_softlockup_watchdog. > + */ > +#define SOFTLOCKUP_PREVENTION_LIMIT 1000 If this is to have potentially kernel-wide scope, its name should identify which subsystem it belongs to. Maybe OOM_KILL_RESCHED or something. But I'm not sure that this really needs to exist. Are the two usage sites particularly related? > enum oom_constraint { > CONSTRAINT_NONE, > CONSTRAINT_CPUSET, > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index 5c373d275e7a..f4c12d6e7b37 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -1161,6 +1161,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > { > struct mem_cgroup *iter; > int ret = 0; > + int i = 0; > > BUG_ON(mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg)); > > @@ -1169,8 +1170,11 @@ void mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > struct task_struct *task; > > css_task_iter_start(&iter->css, CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS, &it); > - while (!ret && (task = css_task_iter_next(&it))) > + while (!ret && (task = css_task_iter_next(&it))) { > ret = fn(task, arg); > + if (++i % SOFTLOCKUP_PREVENTION_LIMIT) And a modulus operation is somewhat expensive. Perhaps a simple /* Avoid potential softlockup warning */ if ((++i & 1023) == 0) at both sites will suffice. Opinions might vary...
On Fri 20-12-24 14:47:34, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 10:31:23 +0000 Chen Ridong <chenridong@huaweicloud.com> wrote: > > > From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@huawei.com> > > > > A soft lockup issue was found in the product with about 56,000 tasks were > > in the OOM cgroup, it was traversing them when the soft lockup was > > triggered. > > > > ... > > > > This is because thousands of processes are in the OOM cgroup, it takes a > > long time to traverse all of them. As a result, this lead to soft lockup > > in the OOM process. > > > > To fix this issue, call 'cond_resched' in the 'mem_cgroup_scan_tasks' > > function per 1000 iterations. For global OOM, call > > 'touch_softlockup_watchdog' per 1000 iterations to avoid this issue. > > > > ... > > > > --- a/include/linux/oom.h > > +++ b/include/linux/oom.h > > @@ -14,6 +14,13 @@ struct notifier_block; > > struct mem_cgroup; > > struct task_struct; > > > > +/* When it traverses for long time, to prevent softlockup, call > > + * cond_resched/touch_softlockup_watchdog very 1000 iterations. > > + * The 1000 value is not exactly right, it's used to mitigate the overhead > > + * of cond_resched/touch_softlockup_watchdog. > > + */ > > +#define SOFTLOCKUP_PREVENTION_LIMIT 1000 > > If this is to have potentially kernel-wide scope, its name should > identify which subsystem it belongs to. Maybe OOM_KILL_RESCHED or > something. > > But I'm not sure that this really needs to exist. Are the two usage > sites particularly related? Yes, I do not think this needs to pretend to be a more generic mechanism to prevent soft lockups. The number of iterations highly depends on the operation itself. > > > enum oom_constraint { > > CONSTRAINT_NONE, > > CONSTRAINT_CPUSET, > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > > index 5c373d275e7a..f4c12d6e7b37 100644 > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > > @@ -1161,6 +1161,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > > { > > struct mem_cgroup *iter; > > int ret = 0; > > + int i = 0; > > > > BUG_ON(mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg)); > > > > @@ -1169,8 +1170,11 @@ void mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > > struct task_struct *task; > > > > css_task_iter_start(&iter->css, CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS, &it); > > - while (!ret && (task = css_task_iter_next(&it))) > > + while (!ret && (task = css_task_iter_next(&it))) { > > ret = fn(task, arg); > > + if (++i % SOFTLOCKUP_PREVENTION_LIMIT) > > And a modulus operation is somewhat expensive. This is a cold path used during OOM. While we can make it more optimal I doubt it matters in practice so we should aim at readbility. I do not mind either way, I just wanted to note that this is not performance sensitive. > > Perhaps a simple > > /* Avoid potential softlockup warning */ > if ((++i & 1023) == 0) > > at both sites will suffice. Opinions might vary... >
diff --git a/include/linux/oom.h b/include/linux/oom.h index 1e0fc6931ce9..df2d336f653d 100644 --- a/include/linux/oom.h +++ b/include/linux/oom.h @@ -14,6 +14,13 @@ struct notifier_block; struct mem_cgroup; struct task_struct; +/* When it traverses for long time, to prevent softlockup, call + * cond_resched/touch_softlockup_watchdog very 1000 iterations. + * The 1000 value is not exactly right, it's used to mitigate the overhead + * of cond_resched/touch_softlockup_watchdog. + */ +#define SOFTLOCKUP_PREVENTION_LIMIT 1000 + enum oom_constraint { CONSTRAINT_NONE, CONSTRAINT_CPUSET, diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c index 5c373d275e7a..f4c12d6e7b37 100644 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c @@ -1161,6 +1161,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, { struct mem_cgroup *iter; int ret = 0; + int i = 0; BUG_ON(mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg)); @@ -1169,8 +1170,11 @@ void mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct task_struct *task; css_task_iter_start(&iter->css, CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS, &it); - while (!ret && (task = css_task_iter_next(&it))) + while (!ret && (task = css_task_iter_next(&it))) { ret = fn(task, arg); + if (++i % SOFTLOCKUP_PREVENTION_LIMIT) + cond_resched(); + } css_task_iter_end(&it); if (ret) { mem_cgroup_iter_break(memcg, iter); diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c index 1c485beb0b93..05e613750e9b 100644 --- a/mm/oom_kill.c +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ #include <linux/init.h> #include <linux/mmu_notifier.h> #include <linux/cred.h> +#include <linux/nmi.h> #include <asm/tlb.h> #include "internal.h" @@ -430,10 +431,14 @@ static void dump_tasks(struct oom_control *oc) mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(oc->memcg, dump_task, oc); else { struct task_struct *p; + int i = 0; rcu_read_lock(); - for_each_process(p) + for_each_process(p) { + if (++i % SOFTLOCKUP_PREVENTION_LIMIT) + touch_softlockup_watchdog(); dump_task(p, oc); + } rcu_read_unlock(); } }