[Intel-gfx] [RFC] [PATCH] mm, oom: Offload OOM notify callback to a kernel thread.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 01:50:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 02-10-17 20:33:52, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > [Hmm, I do not see the original patch which this has been a reply to]
> > 
> > urbl.hostedemail.com and b.barracudacentral.org blocked my IP address,
> > and the rest are "Recipient address rejected: Greylisted" or
> > "Deferred: 451-4.3.0 Multiple destination domains per transaction is unsupported.",
> > and after all dropped at the servers. Sad...
> > 
> > > 
> > > On Mon 02-10-17 06:59:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 02:44:34PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > > Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:27:19PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hello.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I noticed that virtio_balloon is using register_oom_notifier() and
> > > > > > > > leak_balloon() from virtballoon_oom_notify() might depend on
> > > > > > > > __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM memory allocation.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > In leak_balloon(), mutex_lock(&vb->balloon_lock) is called in order to
> > > > > > > > serialize against fill_balloon(). But in fill_balloon(),
> > > > > > > > alloc_page(GFP_HIGHUSER[_MOVABLE] | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NORETRY) is
> > > > > > > > called with vb->balloon_lock mutex held. Since GFP_HIGHUSER[_MOVABLE] implies
> > > > > > > > __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS, this allocation attempt might
> > > > > > > > depend on somebody else's __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM | !__GFP_NORETRY memory
> > > > > > > > allocation. Such __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM | !__GFP_NORETRY allocation can reach
> > > > > > > > __alloc_pages_may_oom() and hold oom_lock mutex and call out_of_memory().
> > > > > > > > And leak_balloon() is called by virtballoon_oom_notify() via
> > > > > > > > blocking_notifier_call_chain() callback when vb->balloon_lock mutex is already
> > > > > > > > held by fill_balloon(). As a result, despite __GFP_NORETRY is specified,
> > > > > > > > fill_balloon() can indirectly get stuck waiting for vb->balloon_lock mutex
> > > > > > > > at leak_balloon().
> > > 
> > > This is really nasty! And I would argue that this is an abuse of the oom
> > > notifier interface from the virtio code. OOM notifiers are an ugly hack
> > > on its own but all its users have to be really careful to not depend on
> > > any allocation request because that is a straight deadlock situation.
> > 
> > Please describe such warning at
> > "int register_oom_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)" definition.
> 
> Yes, we can and should do that. Although I would prefer to simply
> document this API as deprecated. Care to send a patch? I am quite busy
> with other stuff.
> 
> > > I do not think that making oom notifier API more complex is the way to
> > > go. Can we simply change the lock to try_lock?
> > 
> > Using mutex_trylock(&vb->balloon_lock) alone is not sufficient. Inside the
> > mutex, __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM && !__GFP_NORETRY allocation attempt is used
> > which will fail to make progress due to oom_lock already held. Therefore,
> > virtballoon_oom_notify() needs to guarantee that all allocation attempts use
> > GFP_NOWAIT when called from virtballoon_oom_notify().
> 
> Ohh, I missed your point and thought the dependency is indirect

I do think this is the case. See below.


> and some
> other call path is allocating while holding the lock. But you seem to be
> right and
> leak_balloon
>   tell_host
>     virtqueue_add_outbuf
>       virtqueue_add
> 
> can do GFP_KERNEL allocation and this is clearly wrong. Nobody should
> try to allocate while we are in the OOM path. Michael, is there any way
> to drop this?

Yes - in practice it won't ever allocate - that path is never taken
with add_outbuf - it is for add_sgs only.

IMHO the issue is balloon inflation which needs to allocate
memory. It does it under a mutex, and oom handler tries to take the
same mutex.


> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs