| Message ID | 20150604130830.GH26425@suse.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 14:08:30 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:32:00AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 13:40:26 +0100 > > Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 08:03:12AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > We currently increment the memalloc_socks counter if we have a xprt that > > > > is associated with a swapfile. That socket can be replaced however > > > > during a reconnect event, and the memalloc_socks counter is never > > > > decremented if that occurs. > > > > > > > > When tearing down a xprt socket, check to see if the xprt is set up for > > > > swapping and sk_clear_memalloc before releasing the socket if so. > > > > > > > > Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@primarydata.com> > > > > > > Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> > > > > > > > Thanks Mel, > > > > I should also mention that I see this warning pop when working with > > swapfiles on NFS. This trace is with this patchset, but I see a similar > > one without it: > > > > [ 74.232485] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > [ 74.233354] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 754 at net/core/sock.c:364 sk_clear_memalloc+0x51/0x80() > > [ 74.234790] Modules linked in: cts rpcsec_gss_krb5 nfsv4 dns_resolver nfs fscache xfs libcrc32c snd_hda_codec_generic snd_hda_intel snd_hda_controller snd_hda_codec snd_hda_core snd_hwdep snd_seq snd_seq_device nfsd snd_pcm snd_timer snd e1000 ppdev parport_pc joydev parport pvpanic soundcore floppy serio_raw i2c_piix4 pcspkr nfs_acl lockd virtio_balloon acpi_cpufreq auth_rpcgss grace sunrpc qxl drm_kms_helper ttm drm virtio_console virtio_blk virtio_pci ata_generic virtio_ring pata_acpi virtio > > [ 74.243599] CPU: 2 PID: 754 Comm: swapoff Not tainted 4.1.0-rc6+ #5 > > [ 74.244635] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011 > > [ 74.245546] 0000000000000000 0000000079e69e31 ffff8800d066bde8 ffffffff8179263d > > [ 74.246786] 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ffff8800d066be28 ffffffff8109e6fa > > [ 74.248175] 0000000000000000 ffff880118d48000 ffff8800d58f5c08 ffff880036e380a8 > > [ 74.249483] Call Trace: > > [ 74.249872] [<ffffffff8179263d>] dump_stack+0x45/0x57 > > [ 74.250703] [<ffffffff8109e6fa>] warn_slowpath_common+0x8a/0xc0 > > [ 74.251655] [<ffffffff8109e82a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20 > > [ 74.252585] [<ffffffff81661241>] sk_clear_memalloc+0x51/0x80 > > [ 74.253519] [<ffffffffa0116c72>] xs_disable_swap+0x42/0x80 [sunrpc] > > [ 74.254537] [<ffffffffa01109de>] rpc_clnt_swap_deactivate+0x7e/0xc0 [sunrpc] > > [ 74.255610] [<ffffffffa03e4fd7>] nfs_swap_deactivate+0x27/0x30 [nfs] > > [ 74.256582] [<ffffffff811e99d4>] destroy_swap_extents+0x74/0x80 > > [ 74.257496] [<ffffffff811ecb52>] SyS_swapoff+0x222/0x5c0 > > [ 74.258318] [<ffffffff81023f27>] ? syscall_trace_leave+0xc7/0x140 > > [ 74.259253] [<ffffffff81798dae>] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x71 > > [ 74.260158] ---[ end trace 2530722966429f10 ]--- > > > > ...that comes from this in sk_clear_memalloc: > > > > /* > > * SOCK_MEMALLOC is allowed to ignore rmem limits to ensure forward > > * progress of swapping. However, if SOCK_MEMALLOC is cleared while > > * it has rmem allocations there is a risk that the user of the > > * socket cannot make forward progress due to exceeding the rmem > > * limits. By rights, sk_clear_memalloc() should only be called > > * on sockets being torn down but warn and reset the accounting if > > * that assumption breaks. > > */ > > if (WARN_ON(sk->sk_forward_alloc)) > > sk_mem_reclaim(sk); > > > > Is it wrong to call sk_clear_memalloc on swapoff? Should we try to keep > > it set up as a memalloc socket on the last swapoff and just wait until > > the socket is being freed to clear it? If so, then maybe the right > > thing to do is to call sk_clear_memalloc in __sk_free or somewhere > > similar if it's set up for memalloc? > > > > I think it is perfectly reasonable to remove the warning after your > series. When I had it in mind, I was primarily thinking of the shutdown > case and a single swap file. With your series applied, the disabling of > swap is called at the correct time. So, something like this to tack on > to the end of your series? > > ---8<--- > net, swap: Remove a warning and clarify why sk_mem_reclaim is required when deactivating swap > > Jeff Layton reported the following; > > [ 74.232485] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [ 74.233354] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 754 at net/core/sock.c:364 sk_clear_memalloc+0x51/0x80() > [ 74.234790] Modules linked in: cts rpcsec_gss_krb5 nfsv4 dns_resolver nfs fscache xfs libcrc32c snd_hda_codec_generic snd_hda_intel snd_hda_controller snd_hda_codec snd_hda_core snd_hwdep snd_seq snd_seq_device nfsd snd_pcm snd_timer snd e1000 ppdev parport_pc joydev parport pvpanic soundcore floppy serio_raw i2c_piix4 pcspkr nfs_acl lockd virtio_balloon acpi_cpufreq auth_rpcgss grace sunrpc qxl drm_kms_helper ttm drm virtio_console virtio_blk virtio_pci ata_generic virtio_ring pata_acpi virtio > [ 74.243599] CPU: 2 PID: 754 Comm: swapoff Not tainted 4.1.0-rc6+ #5 > [ 74.244635] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011 > [ 74.245546] 0000000000000000 0000000079e69e31 ffff8800d066bde8 ffffffff8179263d > [ 74.246786] 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ffff8800d066be28 ffffffff8109e6fa > [ 74.248175] 0000000000000000 ffff880118d48000 ffff8800d58f5c08 ffff880036e380a8 > [ 74.249483] Call Trace: > [ 74.249872] [<ffffffff8179263d>] dump_stack+0x45/0x57 > [ 74.250703] [<ffffffff8109e6fa>] warn_slowpath_common+0x8a/0xc0 > [ 74.251655] [<ffffffff8109e82a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20 > [ 74.252585] [<ffffffff81661241>] sk_clear_memalloc+0x51/0x80 > [ 74.253519] [<ffffffffa0116c72>] xs_disable_swap+0x42/0x80 [sunrpc] > [ 74.254537] [<ffffffffa01109de>] rpc_clnt_swap_deactivate+0x7e/0xc0 [sunrpc] > [ 74.255610] [<ffffffffa03e4fd7>] nfs_swap_deactivate+0x27/0x30 [nfs] > [ 74.256582] [<ffffffff811e99d4>] destroy_swap_extents+0x74/0x80 > [ 74.257496] [<ffffffff811ecb52>] SyS_swapoff+0x222/0x5c0 > [ 74.258318] [<ffffffff81023f27>] ? syscall_trace_leave+0xc7/0x140 > [ 74.259253] [<ffffffff81798dae>] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x71 > [ 74.260158] ---[ end trace 2530722966429f10 ]--- > > The warning in question was unnecessary but with Jeff's series the rules > are also clearer. This patch removes the warning and updates the comment > to explain why sk_mem_reclaim() may still be called. > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> > --- > net/core/sock.c | 12 +++++------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c > index 71e3e5f1eaa0..1ebf706b5847 100644 > --- a/net/core/sock.c > +++ b/net/core/sock.c > @@ -354,14 +354,12 @@ void sk_clear_memalloc(struct sock *sk) > > /* > * SOCK_MEMALLOC is allowed to ignore rmem limits to ensure forward > - * progress of swapping. However, if SOCK_MEMALLOC is cleared while > - * it has rmem allocations there is a risk that the user of the > - * socket cannot make forward progress due to exceeding the rmem > - * limits. By rights, sk_clear_memalloc() should only be called > - * on sockets being torn down but warn and reset the accounting if > - * that assumption breaks. > + * progress of swapping. SOCK_MEMALLOC may be cleared while > + * it has rmem allocations due to the last swapfile being deactivated > + * but there is a risk that the socket is unusable due to exceeding > + * the rmem limits. Reclaim the reserves and obey rmem limits again. > */ > - if (WARN_ON(sk->sk_forward_alloc)) > + if (sk->sk_forward_alloc) > sk_mem_reclaim(sk); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sk_clear_memalloc); Sure, sounds reasonable. If I need to do a respin of the series, I'll roll this into it. Otherwise you or I can just send it as a separate patch afterward. Thanks,
diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c index 71e3e5f1eaa0..1ebf706b5847 100644 --- a/net/core/sock.c +++ b/net/core/sock.c @@ -354,14 +354,12 @@ void sk_clear_memalloc(struct sock *sk) /* * SOCK_MEMALLOC is allowed to ignore rmem limits to ensure forward - * progress of swapping. However, if SOCK_MEMALLOC is cleared while - * it has rmem allocations there is a risk that the user of the - * socket cannot make forward progress due to exceeding the rmem - * limits. By rights, sk_clear_memalloc() should only be called - * on sockets being torn down but warn and reset the accounting if - * that assumption breaks. + * progress of swapping. SOCK_MEMALLOC may be cleared while + * it has rmem allocations due to the last swapfile being deactivated + * but there is a risk that the socket is unusable due to exceeding + * the rmem limits. Reclaim the reserves and obey rmem limits again. */ - if (WARN_ON(sk->sk_forward_alloc)) + if (sk->sk_forward_alloc) sk_mem_reclaim(sk); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sk_clear_memalloc);