Re: [PATCH v4 12/14] execute the whole memcg freeing in free_worker

[Michal Hocko]

On Mon 08-10-12 14:06:18, Glauber Costa wrote:
> A lot of the initialization we do in mem_cgroup_create() is done with
> softirqs enabled. This include grabbing a css id, which holds
> &ss->id_lock->rlock, and the per-zone trees, which holds
> rtpz->lock->rlock. All of those signal to the lockdep mechanism that
> those locks can be used in SOFTIRQ-ON-W context. This means that the
> freeing of memcg structure must happen in a compatible context,
> otherwise we'll get a deadlock, like the one bellow, caught by lockdep:
> 
>   [<ffffffff81103095>] free_accounted_pages+0x47/0x4c
>   [<ffffffff81047f90>] free_task+0x31/0x5c
>   [<ffffffff8104807d>] __put_task_struct+0xc2/0xdb
>   [<ffffffff8104dfc7>] put_task_struct+0x1e/0x22
>   [<ffffffff8104e144>] delayed_put_task_struct+0x7a/0x98
>   [<ffffffff810cf0e5>] __rcu_process_callbacks+0x269/0x3df
>   [<ffffffff810cf28c>] rcu_process_callbacks+0x31/0x5b
>   [<ffffffff8105266d>] __do_softirq+0x122/0x277
> 
> This usage pattern could not be triggered before kmem came into play.
> With the introduction of kmem stack handling, it is possible that we
> call the last mem_cgroup_put() from the task destructor, which is run in
> an rcu callback. Such callbacks are run with softirqs disabled, leading
> to the offensive usage pattern.
> 
> In general, we have little, if any, means to guarantee in which context
> the last memcg_put will happen. The best we can do is test it and try to
> make sure no invalid context releases are happening. But as we add more
> code to memcg, the possible interactions grow in number and expose more
> ways to get context conflicts. One thing to keep in mind, is that part
> of the freeing process is already deferred to a worker, such as vfree(),
> that can only be called from process context.
> 
> For the moment, the only two functions we really need moved away are:
> 
>   * free_css_id(), and
>   * mem_cgroup_remove_from_trees().
> 
> But because the later accesses per-zone info,
> free_mem_cgroup_per_zone_info() needs to be moved as well. With that, we
> are left with the per_cpu stats only. Better move it all.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
> CC: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>

OK, it seems it is much easier this way.
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>

> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 2f92f89..c5215f1 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -5205,16 +5205,29 @@ out_free:
>  }
>  
>  /*
> - * Helpers for freeing a kmalloc()ed/vzalloc()ed mem_cgroup by RCU,
> - * but in process context.  The work_freeing structure is overlaid
> - * on the rcu_freeing structure, which itself is overlaid on memsw.
> + * At destroying mem_cgroup, references from swap_cgroup can remain.
> + * (scanning all at force_empty is too costly...)
> + *
> + * Instead of clearing all references at force_empty, we remember
> + * the number of reference from swap_cgroup and free mem_cgroup when
> + * it goes down to 0.
> + *
> + * Removal of cgroup itself succeeds regardless of refs from swap.
>   */
> -static void free_work(struct work_struct *work)
> +
> +static void __mem_cgroup_free(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>  {
> -	struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> +	int node;
>  	int size = sizeof(struct mem_cgroup);
>  
> -	memcg = container_of(work, struct mem_cgroup, work_freeing);
> +	mem_cgroup_remove_from_trees(memcg);
> +	free_css_id(&mem_cgroup_subsys, &memcg->css);
> +
> +	for_each_node(node)
> +		free_mem_cgroup_per_zone_info(memcg, node);
> +
> +	free_percpu(memcg->stat);
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * We need to make sure that (at least for now), the jump label
>  	 * destruction code runs outside of the cgroup lock. This is because
> @@ -5233,38 +5246,27 @@ static void free_work(struct work_struct *work)
>  		vfree(memcg);
>  }
>  
> -static void free_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu_head)
> -{
> -	struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> -
> -	memcg = container_of(rcu_head, struct mem_cgroup, rcu_freeing);
> -	INIT_WORK(&memcg->work_freeing, free_work);
> -	schedule_work(&memcg->work_freeing);
> -}
>  
>  /*
> - * At destroying mem_cgroup, references from swap_cgroup can remain.
> - * (scanning all at force_empty is too costly...)
> - *
> - * Instead of clearing all references at force_empty, we remember
> - * the number of reference from swap_cgroup and free mem_cgroup when
> - * it goes down to 0.
> - *
> - * Removal of cgroup itself succeeds regardless of refs from swap.
> + * Helpers for freeing a kmalloc()ed/vzalloc()ed mem_cgroup by RCU,
> + * but in process context.  The work_freeing structure is overlaid
> + * on the rcu_freeing structure, which itself is overlaid on memsw.
>   */
> -
> -static void __mem_cgroup_free(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +static void free_work(struct work_struct *work)
>  {
> -	int node;
> +	struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>  
> -	mem_cgroup_remove_from_trees(memcg);
> -	free_css_id(&mem_cgroup_subsys, &memcg->css);
> +	memcg = container_of(work, struct mem_cgroup, work_freeing);
> +	__mem_cgroup_free(memcg);
> +}
>  
> -	for_each_node(node)
> -		free_mem_cgroup_per_zone_info(memcg, node);
> +static void free_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu_head)
> +{
> +	struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>  
> -	free_percpu(memcg->stat);
> -	call_rcu(&memcg->rcu_freeing, free_rcu);
> +	memcg = container_of(rcu_head, struct mem_cgroup, rcu_freeing);
> +	INIT_WORK(&memcg->work_freeing, free_work);
> +	schedule_work(&memcg->work_freeing);
>  }
>  
>  static void mem_cgroup_get(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> @@ -5276,7 +5278,7 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_put(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int count)
>  {
>  	if (atomic_sub_and_test(count, &memcg->refcnt)) {
>  		struct mem_cgroup *parent = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg);
> -		__mem_cgroup_free(memcg);
> +		call_rcu(&memcg->rcu_freeing, free_rcu);
>  		if (parent)
>  			mem_cgroup_put(parent);
>  	}
> -- 
> 1.7.11.4
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/