Linux Virtualization - Oct 2017 - [RFC] [PATCH] mm,oom: Offload OOM notify callback to a kernel thread.

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

On Mon 02-10-17 17:11:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 01:50:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > 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.
try_lock for the oom notifier path should heal the problem then, righ?
At least for as a quick fix.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 04:19:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko
wrote:
> On Mon 02-10-17 17:11:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 01:50:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > 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.
> 
> try_lock for the oom notifier path should heal the problem then, righ?
> At least for as a quick fix.
IMHO it definitely fixes the deadlock. But it does not fix the bug
that balloon isn't sometimes deflated on oom even though the deflate on
oom flag is set.
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs