Re: [PATCH v1] mm: hugetlb: fix hugepage memory leak caused by wrong reserve count

From: Naoya Horiguchi
Date: Tue Nov 24 2015 - 00:33:46 EST


On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:56:18PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 11/19/2015 11:57 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
> >>
> >> When dequeue_huge_page_vma() in alloc_huge_page() fails, we fall back to
> >> alloc_buddy_huge_page() to directly create a hugepage from the buddy allocator.
> >> In that case, however, if alloc_buddy_huge_page() succeeds we don't decrement
> >> h->resv_huge_pages, which means that successful hugetlb_fault() returns without
> >> releasing the reserve count. As a result, subsequent hugetlb_fault() might fail
> >> despite that there are still free hugepages.
> >>
> >> This patch simply adds decrementing code on that code path.
>
> In general, I agree with the patch. If we allocate a huge page via the
> buddy allocator and that page will be used to satisfy a reservation, then
> we need to decrement the reservation count.
>
> As Hillf mentions, this code is not exactly the same in linux-next.
> Specifically, there is the new call to take the memory policy of the
> vma into account when calling the buddy allocator. I do not think,
> this impacts your proposed change but you may want to test with that
> in place.
>
> >>
> >> I reproduced this problem when testing v4.3 kernel in the following situation:
> >> - the test machine/VM is a NUMA system,
> >> - hugepage overcommiting is enabled,
> >> - most of hugepages are allocated and there's only one free hugepage
> >> which is on node 0 (for example),
> >> - another program, which calls set_mempolicy(MPOL_BIND) to bind itself to
> >> node 1, tries to allocate a hugepage,
>
> I am curious about this scenario. When this second program attempts to
> allocate the page, I assume it creates a reservation first. Is this
> reservation before or after setting mempolicy? If the mempolicy was set
> first, I would have expected the reservation to allocate a page on
> node 1 to satisfy the reservation.

My testing called set_mempolicy() at first then called mmap(), but things
didn't change if I reordered them, because currently hugetlb reservation is
not NUMA-aware.

Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi--
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/