Re: [PATCH] fix leak of swap accounting as stale swap cache undermemcg

[Balbir Singh]

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-04-27 18:12:59]:

> Works very well under my test as following.
>   prepare a program which does malloc, touch pages repeatedly.
> 
>   # echo 2M > /cgroup/A/memory.limit_in_bytes  # set limit to 2M.
>   # echo 0 > /cgroup/A/tasks.                  # add shell to the group. 
> 
>   while true; do
>     malloc_and_touch 1M &                       # run malloc and touch program.
>     malloc_and_touch 1M &
>     malloc_and_touch 1M &
>     sleep 3
>     pkill malloc_and_touch                      # kill them
>   done
> 
> Then, you can see memory.memsw.usage_in_bytes increase gradually and exceeds 3M bytes.
> This means account for swp_entry is not reclaimed at kill -> exit-> zap_pte()
> because of race with swap-ops and zap_pte() under memcg.
> 
> ==
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Because free_swap_and_cache() function is called under spinlocks,
> it can't sleep and use trylock_page() instead of lock_page().
> By this, swp_entry which is not used after zap_xx can exists as
> SwapCache, which will be never used.
> This kind of SwapCache is reclaimed by global LRU when it's found
> at LRU rotation. Typical case is following.
>

The changelog is not clear, this is the typical case for?
 
>        (CPU0 zap_pte)      (CPU1 swapin-readahead)
>      zap_pte()                swap_duplicate()
>      swap_entry_free()
>      -> nothing to do 
>                               swap will be read in.
> 
> (This race window is wider than expected because of readahead)
> 

This should happen when the page is undergoing IO and this page_lock
is not available. BTW, do we need page_lock to uncharge the page from
the memory resource controller?

> When memory cgroup is used, the global LRU will not be kicked and
> stale Swap Caches will not be reclaimed. Newly read-in swap cache is
> not accounted and not added to memcg's LRU until it's mapped.

      ^^^^^^^ I thought it was accounted for but not on LRU

> So, memcg itself cant reclaim it but swp_entry is freed untila
                                                   ^ not?
> global LRU finds it.
> 
> This is problematic because memcg's swap entry accounting is leaked
> memcg can't know it. To catch this stale SwapCache, we have to chase it
> and check the swap is alive or not again.
> 
> For chasing all swap entry, we need amount of memory but we don't
> have enough space and it seems overkill. But, because stale-swap-cache
> can be short-lived if we free it in proper way, we can check them
> and sweep them out in lazy way with (small) static size buffer.
> 
> This patch adds a function to chase stale swap cache and reclaim it.
> When zap_xxx fails to remove swap ent, it will be recoreded into buffer
> and memcg's sweep routine will reclaim it later.
> No sleep, no memory allocation under free_swap_and_cache().
> 
> This patch also adds stale-swap-cache-congestion logic and try to avoid to
> have too much stale swap caches at once.
> 
> Implementation is naive but maybe the cost meets trade-off.
>

To be honest, I don't like the code complexity added, that is why I
want to explore more before agreeing to add an entire GC. We could
consider using pagevecs, but we might not need some of the members
like cold. I know you and Daisuke have worked hard on this problem, if
we can't really find a better way, I'll let this pass.
 
-- 
	Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/