Slub: Increased mem consumption on cpu,mem-less node powerpc guest

[Srikar Dronamraju]

* Vlastimil Babka <vbabka at suse.cz> [2020-03-17 17:45:15]:

> On 3/17/20 5:25 PM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Vlastimil Babka <vbabka at suse.cz> [2020-03-17 16:56:04]:
> > 
> >> 
> >> I wonder why do you get a memory leak while Sachin in the same situation [1]
> >> gets a crash? I don't understand anything anymore.
> > 
> > Sachin was testing on linux-next which has Kirill's patch which modifies
> > slub to use kmalloc_node instead of kmalloc. While Bharata is testing on
> > upstream, which doesn't have this. 
> 
> Yes, that Kirill's patch was about the memcg shrinker map allocation. But the
> patch hunk that Bharata posted as a "hack" that fixes the problem, it follows
> that there has to be something else that calls kmalloc_node(node) where node is
> one that doesn't have present pages.
> 
> He mentions alloc_fair_sched_group() which has:
> 
>         for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
>                 cfs_rq = kzalloc_node(sizeof(struct cfs_rq),
>                                       GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(i));
> ...
>                 se = kzalloc_node(sizeof(struct sched_entity),
>                                   GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(i));
> 


Sachin's experiment.
Upstream-next/ memcg /
possible nodes were 0-31
online nodes were 0-1
kmalloc_node called for_each_node / for_each_possible_node.
This would crash while allocating slab from !N_ONLINE nodes.

Bharata's experiment.
Upstream
possible nodes were 0-1
online nodes were 0-1
kmalloc_node called for_each_online_node/ for_each_possible_cpu
i.e kmalloc is called for N_ONLINE nodes.
So wouldn't crash

Even if his possible nodes were 0-256. I don't think we have kmalloc_node
being called in !N_ONLINE nodes. Hence its not crashing.
If we see the above code that you quote, kzalloc_node is using cpu_to_node
which in Bharata's case will always return 1.


> I assume one of these structs is 1k and other 512 bytes (rounded) and that for
> some possible cpu's cpu_to_node(i) will be 0, which has no present pages. And as
> Bharata pasted, node_to_mem_node(0) = 0
> So this looks like the same scenario, but it doesn't crash? Is the node 0
> actually online here, and/or does it have N_NORMAL_MEMORY state?

I still dont have any clue on the leak though.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju