Re: LTP hugemmap05 test case failure on arm64 with linux-next (next-20190613)

From: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Subject: Re: LTP hugemmap05 test case failure on arm64 with linux-next (next-20190613)
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:54:05 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1561661645.5154.89.camel@lca.pw> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15651f16-8d30-412f-8064-41ff03f3f47d@oracle.com>

On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 11:09 -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 6/24/19 2:53 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > On 6/24/19 2:30 PM, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > So the problem is that ipcget_public() has held the semaphore "ids->rwsem" 
> > > for
> > > too long seems unnecessarily and then goes to sleep sometimes due to
> > > direct
> > > reclaim (other times LTP hugemmap05 [1] has hugetlb_file_setup() returns
> > > -ENOMEM),
> > 
> > Thanks for looking into this!  I noticed that recent kernels could take a
> > VERY long time trying to do high order allocations.  In my case it was
> > trying
> > to do dynamic hugetlb page allocations as well [1].  But, IMO this is more
> > of a general direct reclaim/compation issue than something hugetlb specific.
> > 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > > Ideally, it seems only ipc_findkey() and newseg() in this path needs to
> > > hold the
> > > semaphore to protect concurrency access, so it could just be converted to
> > > a
> > > spinlock instead.
> > 
> > I do not have enough experience with this ipc code to comment on your
> > proposed
> > change.  But, I will look into it.
> > 
> > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/23/2
> 
> I only took a quick look at the ipc code, but there does not appear to be
> a quick/easy change to make.  The issue is that shared memory creation could
> take a long time.  With issue [1] above unresolved, creation of hugetlb backed
> shared memory segments could take a VERY long time.
> 
> I do not believe the test failure is arm specific.  Most likely, it is just
> because testing was done on a system with memory size to trigger this issue?

I think it is because the arm64 machine has the default hugepage size in 512M
instead of 2M on other arches, but the test case still blindly try to allocate
around 200 of hugepages which the system can't handle gracefully, i.e., return
-ENOMEM in reasonable time.

> 
> My plan is to focus on [1].  When that is resolved, this issue should go away.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel