Skip to content

Commit e3336ca

Browse files
Xunlei Pangtorvalds
Xunlei Pang
authored andcommitted
mm: memcg: fix memcg reclaim soft lockup
We've met softlockup with "CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y", when the target memcg doesn't have any reclaimable memory. It can be easily reproduced as below: watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 111s![memcg_test:2204] CPU: 0 PID: 2204 Comm: memcg_test Not tainted 5.9.0-rc2+ #12 Call Trace: shrink_lruvec+0x49f/0x640 shrink_node+0x2a6/0x6f0 do_try_to_free_pages+0xe9/0x3e0 try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages+0xef/0x1f0 try_charge+0x2c1/0x750 mem_cgroup_charge+0xd7/0x240 __add_to_page_cache_locked+0x2fd/0x370 add_to_page_cache_lru+0x4a/0xc0 pagecache_get_page+0x10b/0x2f0 filemap_fault+0x661/0xad0 ext4_filemap_fault+0x2c/0x40 __do_fault+0x4d/0xf9 handle_mm_fault+0x1080/0x1790 It only happens on our 1-vcpu instances, because there's no chance for oom reaper to run to reclaim the to-be-killed process. Add a cond_resched() at the upper shrink_node_memcgs() to solve this issue, this will mean that we will get a scheduling point for each memcg in the reclaimed hierarchy without any dependency on the reclaimable memory in that memcg thus making it more predictable. Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> Acked-by: Chris Down <[email protected]> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <[email protected]> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
1 parent f179654 commit e3336ca

File tree

1 file changed

+8
-0
lines changed

1 file changed

+8
-0
lines changed

mm/vmscan.c

Lines changed: 8 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -2615,6 +2615,14 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
26152615
unsigned long reclaimed;
26162616
unsigned long scanned;
26172617

2618+
/*
2619+
* This loop can become CPU-bound when target memcgs
2620+
* aren't eligible for reclaim - either because they
2621+
* don't have any reclaimable pages, or because their
2622+
* memory is explicitly protected. Avoid soft lockups.
2623+
*/
2624+
cond_resched();
2625+
26182626
mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(target_memcg, memcg);
26192627

26202628
if (mem_cgroup_below_min(memcg)) {

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)