From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 1CD09601D2 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=techadventures.net Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932480AbeFFIEP (ORCPT + 25 others); Wed, 6 Jun 2018 04:04:15 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:34400 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932290AbeFFIEL (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2018 04:04:11 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKK4T4ml1uB0y7C5QTM86vpUZze24RowKJqZc7aUi5fmtxlIhkIVFJ5fIUsJnzddOS8Pom72rw== Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 10:04:08 +0200 From: Oscar Salvador To: Naoya Horiguchi Cc: Matthew Wilcox , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , "mingo@kernel.org" , "dan.j.williams@intel.com" , Huang Ying , Pavel Tatashin Subject: Re: kernel panic in reading /proc/kpageflags when enabling RAM-simulated PMEM Message-ID: <20180606080408.GA31794@techadventures.net> References: <20180605005402.GA22975@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20180605011836.GA32444@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180605073500.GA23766@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20180606051624.GA16021@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20180606051624.GA16021@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 05:16:24AM +0000, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 07:35:01AM +0000, Horiguchi Naoya(堀口 直也) wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 06:18:36PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 12:54:03AM +0000, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > > > Reproduction precedure is like this: > > > > - enable RAM based PMEM (with a kernel boot parameter like memmap=1G!4G) > > > > - read /proc/kpageflags (or call tools/vm/page-types with no arguments) > > > > (- my kernel config is attached) > > > > > > > > I spent a few days on this, but didn't reach any solutions. > > > > So let me report this with some details below ... > > > > > > > > In the critial page request, stable_page_flags() is called with an argument > > > > page whose ->compound_head was somehow filled with '0xffffffffffffffff'. > > > > And compound_head() returns (struct page *)(head - 1), which explains the > > > > address 0xfffffffffffffffe in the above message. > > > > > > Hm. compound_head shares with: > > > > > > struct list_head lru; > > > struct list_head slab_list; /* uses lru */ > > > struct { /* Partial pages */ > > > struct page *next; > > > unsigned long _compound_pad_1; /* compound_head */ > > > unsigned long _pt_pad_1; /* compound_head */ > > > struct dev_pagemap *pgmap; > > > struct rcu_head rcu_head; > > > > > > None of them should be -1. > > > > > > > It seems that this kernel panic happens when reading kpageflags of pfn range > > > > [0xbffd7, 0xc0000), which coresponds to a 'reserved' range. > > > > > > > > [ 0.000000] user-defined physical RAM map: > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000000009fbff] usable > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x000000000009fc00-0x000000000009ffff] reserved > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x00000000000f0000-0x00000000000fffff] reserved > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x00000000bffd6fff] usable > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x00000000bffd7000-0x00000000bfffffff] reserved > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x00000000feffc000-0x00000000feffffff] reserved > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x00000000fffc0000-0x00000000ffffffff] reserved > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x000000013fffffff] persistent (type 12) > > > > > > > > So I guess 'memmap=' parameter might badly affect the memory initialization process. > > > > > > > > This problem doesn't reproduce on v4.17, so some pre-released patch introduces it. > > > > I hope this info helps you find the solution/workaround. > > > > > > Can you try bisecting this? It could be one of my patches to reorder struct > > > page, or it could be one of Pavel's deferred page initialisation patches. > > > Or something else ;-) > > > > Thank you for the comment. I'm trying bisecting now, let you know the result later. > > > > And I found that my statement "not reproduce on v4.17" was wrong (I used > > different kvm guests, which made some different test condition and misguided me), > > this seems an older (at least < 4.15) bug. > > (Cc: Pavel) > > Bisection showed that the following commit introduced this issue: > > commit f7f99100d8d95dbcf09e0216a143211e79418b9f > Author: Pavel Tatashin > Date: Wed Nov 15 17:36:44 2017 -0800 > > mm: stop zeroing memory during allocation in vmemmap > > This patch postpones struct page zeroing to later stage of memory initialization. > My kernel config disabled CONFIG_DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT so two callsites of > __init_single_page() were never reached. So in such case, struct pages populated > by vmemmap_pte_populate() could be left uninitialized? > And I'm not sure yet how this issue becomes visible with memmap= setting. I think that this becomes visible because memmap=x!y creates a persistent memory region: parse_memmap_one { ... } else if (*p == '!') { start_at = memparse(p+1, &p); e820__range_add(start_at, mem_size, E820_TYPE_PRAM); ... } and this region it is not added neither in memblock.memory nor in memblock.reserved. Ranges in memblock.memory get zeroed in memmap_init_zone(), while memblock.reserved get zeroed in free_low_memory_core_early(): static unsigned long __init free_low_memory_core_early(void) { ... for_each_reserved_mem_region(i, &start, &end) reserve_bootmem_region(start, end); ... } Maybe I am mistaken, but I think that persistent memory regions should be marked as reserved. A comment in do_mark_busy() suggests this: static bool __init do_mark_busy(enum e820_type type, struct resource *res) { ... /* * Treat persistent memory like device memory, i.e. reserve it * for exclusive use of a driver */ ... } I wonder if something like this could work and if so, if it is right (i haven't tested it yet): diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c index 71c11ad5643e..3c9686ef74e5 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c @@ -1247,6 +1247,11 @@ void __init e820__memblock_setup(void) if (end != (resource_size_t)end) continue; + if (entry->type == E820_TYPE_PRAM || entry->type == E820_TYPE_PMEM) { + memblock_reserve(entry->addr, entry->size); + continue; + } + if (entry->type != E820_TYPE_RAM && entry->type != E820_TYPE_RESERVED_KERN) continue; Best Regards Oscar Salvador From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f69.google.com (mail-wm0-f69.google.com [74.125.82.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55CFD6B0005 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 04:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f69.google.com with SMTP id v5-v6so2675946wmh.6 for ; Wed, 06 Jun 2018 01:04:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id m184-v6sor966151wmd.84.2018.06.06.01.04.10 for (Google Transport Security); Wed, 06 Jun 2018 01:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 10:04:08 +0200 From: Oscar Salvador Subject: Re: kernel panic in reading /proc/kpageflags when enabling RAM-simulated PMEM Message-ID: <20180606080408.GA31794@techadventures.net> References: <20180605005402.GA22975@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20180605011836.GA32444@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180605073500.GA23766@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20180606051624.GA16021@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20180606051624.GA16021@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Naoya Horiguchi Cc: Matthew Wilcox , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , "mingo@kernel.org" , "dan.j.williams@intel.com" , Huang Ying , Pavel Tatashin On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 05:16:24AM +0000, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 07:35:01AM +0000, Horiguchi Naoya(a ?a?GBP c?'a1?) wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 06:18:36PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 12:54:03AM +0000, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > > > Reproduction precedure is like this: > > > > - enable RAM based PMEM (with a kernel boot parameter like memmap=1G!4G) > > > > - read /proc/kpageflags (or call tools/vm/page-types with no arguments) > > > > (- my kernel config is attached) > > > > > > > > I spent a few days on this, but didn't reach any solutions. > > > > So let me report this with some details below ... > > > > > > > > In the critial page request, stable_page_flags() is called with an argument > > > > page whose ->compound_head was somehow filled with '0xffffffffffffffff'. > > > > And compound_head() returns (struct page *)(head - 1), which explains the > > > > address 0xfffffffffffffffe in the above message. > > > > > > Hm. compound_head shares with: > > > > > > struct list_head lru; > > > struct list_head slab_list; /* uses lru */ > > > struct { /* Partial pages */ > > > struct page *next; > > > unsigned long _compound_pad_1; /* compound_head */ > > > unsigned long _pt_pad_1; /* compound_head */ > > > struct dev_pagemap *pgmap; > > > struct rcu_head rcu_head; > > > > > > None of them should be -1. > > > > > > > It seems that this kernel panic happens when reading kpageflags of pfn range > > > > [0xbffd7, 0xc0000), which coresponds to a 'reserved' range. > > > > > > > > [ 0.000000] user-defined physical RAM map: > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000000009fbff] usable > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x000000000009fc00-0x000000000009ffff] reserved > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x00000000000f0000-0x00000000000fffff] reserved > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x00000000bffd6fff] usable > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x00000000bffd7000-0x00000000bfffffff] reserved > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x00000000feffc000-0x00000000feffffff] reserved > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x00000000fffc0000-0x00000000ffffffff] reserved > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x000000013fffffff] persistent (type 12) > > > > > > > > So I guess 'memmap=' parameter might badly affect the memory initialization process. > > > > > > > > This problem doesn't reproduce on v4.17, so some pre-released patch introduces it. > > > > I hope this info helps you find the solution/workaround. > > > > > > Can you try bisecting this? It could be one of my patches to reorder struct > > > page, or it could be one of Pavel's deferred page initialisation patches. > > > Or something else ;-) > > > > Thank you for the comment. I'm trying bisecting now, let you know the result later. > > > > And I found that my statement "not reproduce on v4.17" was wrong (I used > > different kvm guests, which made some different test condition and misguided me), > > this seems an older (at least < 4.15) bug. > > (Cc: Pavel) > > Bisection showed that the following commit introduced this issue: > > commit f7f99100d8d95dbcf09e0216a143211e79418b9f > Author: Pavel Tatashin > Date: Wed Nov 15 17:36:44 2017 -0800 > > mm: stop zeroing memory during allocation in vmemmap > > This patch postpones struct page zeroing to later stage of memory initialization. > My kernel config disabled CONFIG_DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT so two callsites of > __init_single_page() were never reached. So in such case, struct pages populated > by vmemmap_pte_populate() could be left uninitialized? > And I'm not sure yet how this issue becomes visible with memmap= setting. I think that this becomes visible because memmap=x!y creates a persistent memory region: parse_memmap_one { ... } else if (*p == '!') { start_at = memparse(p+1, &p); e820__range_add(start_at, mem_size, E820_TYPE_PRAM); ... } and this region it is not added neither in memblock.memory nor in memblock.reserved. Ranges in memblock.memory get zeroed in memmap_init_zone(), while memblock.reserved get zeroed in free_low_memory_core_early(): static unsigned long __init free_low_memory_core_early(void) { ... for_each_reserved_mem_region(i, &start, &end) reserve_bootmem_region(start, end); ... } Maybe I am mistaken, but I think that persistent memory regions should be marked as reserved. A comment in do_mark_busy() suggests this: static bool __init do_mark_busy(enum e820_type type, struct resource *res) { ... /* * Treat persistent memory like device memory, i.e. reserve it * for exclusive use of a driver */ ... } I wonder if something like this could work and if so, if it is right (i haven't tested it yet): diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c index 71c11ad5643e..3c9686ef74e5 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c @@ -1247,6 +1247,11 @@ void __init e820__memblock_setup(void) if (end != (resource_size_t)end) continue; + if (entry->type == E820_TYPE_PRAM || entry->type == E820_TYPE_PMEM) { + memblock_reserve(entry->addr, entry->size); + continue; + } + if (entry->type != E820_TYPE_RAM && entry->type != E820_TYPE_RESERVED_KERN) continue; Best Regards Oscar Salvador