From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org by pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org (Dovecot) with LMTP id qVoUFqr/GFs0CgAAmS7hNA ; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 09:49:30 +0000 Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 345A7607F7; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 09:49:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=2.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5AB606DD; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 09:49:29 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 2F5AB606DD 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 S932381AbeFGJt0 (ORCPT + 25 others); Thu, 7 Jun 2018 05:49:26 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:33104 "EHLO mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932206AbeFGJtY (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2018 05:49:24 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id z6-v6so2375766wma.0 for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 02:49:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=wxhtLeiKtzA2M5nqc7WgBTFG9m/IDaLoXi0vhPEEM0c=; b=a2HWQ9WWT1UlZzxSokF7dgN3cOh7coV+hzhSOsyCFZ2oeP73b2YG/71ASJLuaa2JSq eVilwfgdZz02OHgerN5cbq8ipdLL0z+YW2FU6VmS2Dsaa4oarPzGZGNRTHjeBxaJKQRJ 9pFXBWLPVzyKjCq5gdo3QSBg++HxSc2/RM7/TZACwNVEJF0mGhYLBQo+kidEl87xi/qM F9kIR8uDRY0wVNrYrHWKuQmayBkvCzeoePCCfN9WcMV+F8vgq+C1vat4ffhqa1oaNT88 8XbOAXqLJX6GZlZS6i1k9aCNTH/Qb25jbIycx4Dk2lgcoMkKSEaXHIMrOSRBnwtabH9j GTbA== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0a/0wC0KeTmYIGWrf/6YX6r0GChEJKldmRkGKCPpDt4heuIywB g4BXN8R2/zP832dmyemruP4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJBAdzXr53S638pqFQ/BgN5xbyfEn6RyY52at7hATFVs0yDngSxnjRg7UAwSR5B8QF2jf7Hjg== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:934e:: with SMTP id v75-v6mr1218478wmd.52.1528364963078; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 02:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from techadventures.net (techadventures.net. [62.201.165.239]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g75-v6sm1931626wmd.15.2018.06.07.02.49.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Jun 2018 02:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by techadventures.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 58B0C123258; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 11:49:21 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 11:49:21 +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: <20180607094921.GA8545@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> <20180606080408.GA31794@techadventures.net> <20180606085319.GA32052@techadventures.net> <20180606090630.GA27065@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20180606092405.GA6562@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20180607062218.GB22554@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20180607065940.GA7334@techadventures.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20180607065940.GA7334@techadventures.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 08:59:40AM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 06:22:19AM +0000, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 09:24:05AM +0000, Horiguchi Naoya(堀口 直也) wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 09:06:30AM +0000, Horiguchi Naoya(堀口 直也) wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:53:19AM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:04:08AM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote: > > > > > > 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; > > > > > > > > > > It does not seem to work, so the reasoning might be incorrect. > > > > > > > > Thank you for the comment. > > > > > > > > One note is that the memory region with "broken struct page" is a typical > > > > reserved region, not a pmem region. Strangely reading offset 0xbffd7 of > > > > /proc/kpageflags is OK if pmem region does not exist, but NG if pmem region exists. > > > > Reading the offset like 0x100000 (on pmem region) does not cause the crash, > > > > so pmem region seems properly set up. > > > > > > > > [ 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 ===> "broken struct page" region > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x00000000feffc000-0x00000000feffffff] reserved > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x00000000fffc0000-0x00000000ffffffff] reserved > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x000000013fffffff] persistent (type 12) => pmem region > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x0000000140000000-0x000000023fffffff] usable > > > > > > > > > > I have another note: > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > I quickly checked whether enabling CONFIG_DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT affect > > > the issue. And found that the kernel panic happens even with this config enabled. > > > So I'm still confused... > > > > Let me share some new facts: > > > > I gave accidentally an inconvenient memmap layout like 'memmap=1G!4G' in > > 2 NUMA node with 8 GB memory. > > While I didn't intended this, but 4GB is the address starting some memory > > block when no "memmap=" option is provided. > > > > (messages from free_area_init_nodes() for no "memmap=" case > > [ 0.000000] Early memory node ranges > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000000001000-0x000000000009efff] > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x00000000bffd6fff] > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x000000013fffffff] // <--- > > [ 0.000000] node 1: [mem 0x0000000140000000-0x000000023fffffff] > > > > When "memmap=1G!4G" is given, the range [0x0000000100000000-0x000000013fffffff] > > disappears and kernel messages are like below: > > > > (messages from free_area_init_nodes() for "memmap=1G!4G" case > > [ 0.000000] Early memory node ranges > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000000001000-0x000000000009efff] > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x00000000bffd6fff] > > [ 0.000000] node 1: [mem 0x0000000140000000-0x000000023fffffff] > > > > This makes kernel think that the end pfn of node 0 is 0 0xbffd7 > > instead of 0x140000, which affects the memory initialization process. > > memmap_init_zone() calls __init_single_page() for each page within a zone, > > so if zone->spanned_pages are underestimated, some pages are left uninitialized. > > > > If I provide 'memmap=1G!7G', the kernel panic does not reproduce and > > kernel messages are like below. > > > > (messages from free_area_init_nodes() for "memmap=1G!7G" case > > [ 0.000000] Early memory node ranges > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000000001000-0x000000000009efff] > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x00000000bffd6fff] > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x000000013fffffff] > > [ 0.000000] node 1: [mem 0x0000000140000000-0x00000001bfffffff] > > [ 0.000000] node 1: [mem 0x0000000200000000-0x000000023fffffff] > > > > > > I think that in order to fix this, we need some conditions and/or prechecks > > for memblock layout, does it make sense? Or any other better approaches? Could you share the "e820: BIOS-provided physical RAM map" and "e820: user-defined physical RAM map" output with both memmap= args (1G!4G and 1G!7G)? thanks Oscar Salvador From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f70.google.com (mail-wm0-f70.google.com [74.125.82.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238206B0003 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 05:49:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f70.google.com with SMTP id h18-v6so4392181wmb.8 for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 02:49:25 -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 w81-v6sor312063wmw.26.2018.06.07.02.49.23 for (Google Transport Security); Thu, 07 Jun 2018 02:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 11:49:21 +0200 From: Oscar Salvador Subject: Re: kernel panic in reading /proc/kpageflags when enabling RAM-simulated PMEM Message-ID: <20180607094921.GA8545@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> <20180606080408.GA31794@techadventures.net> <20180606085319.GA32052@techadventures.net> <20180606090630.GA27065@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20180606092405.GA6562@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20180607062218.GB22554@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20180607065940.GA7334@techadventures.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20180607065940.GA7334@techadventures.net> 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 Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 08:59:40AM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 06:22:19AM +0000, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 09:24:05AM +0000, Horiguchi Naoya(a ?a?GBP c?'a1?) wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 09:06:30AM +0000, Horiguchi Naoya(a ?a?GBP c?'a1?) wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:53:19AM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:04:08AM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote: > > > > > > 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; > > > > > > > > > > It does not seem to work, so the reasoning might be incorrect. > > > > > > > > Thank you for the comment. > > > > > > > > One note is that the memory region with "broken struct page" is a typical > > > > reserved region, not a pmem region. Strangely reading offset 0xbffd7 of > > > > /proc/kpageflags is OK if pmem region does not exist, but NG if pmem region exists. > > > > Reading the offset like 0x100000 (on pmem region) does not cause the crash, > > > > so pmem region seems properly set up. > > > > > > > > [ 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 ===> "broken struct page" region > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x00000000feffc000-0x00000000feffffff] reserved > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x00000000fffc0000-0x00000000ffffffff] reserved > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x000000013fffffff] persistent (type 12) => pmem region > > > > [ 0.000000] user: [mem 0x0000000140000000-0x000000023fffffff] usable > > > > > > > > > > I have another note: > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > I quickly checked whether enabling CONFIG_DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT affect > > > the issue. And found that the kernel panic happens even with this config enabled. > > > So I'm still confused... > > > > Let me share some new facts: > > > > I gave accidentally an inconvenient memmap layout like 'memmap=1G!4G' in > > 2 NUMA node with 8 GB memory. > > While I didn't intended this, but 4GB is the address starting some memory > > block when no "memmap=" option is provided. > > > > (messages from free_area_init_nodes() for no "memmap=" case > > [ 0.000000] Early memory node ranges > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000000001000-0x000000000009efff] > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x00000000bffd6fff] > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x000000013fffffff] // <--- > > [ 0.000000] node 1: [mem 0x0000000140000000-0x000000023fffffff] > > > > When "memmap=1G!4G" is given, the range [0x0000000100000000-0x000000013fffffff] > > disappears and kernel messages are like below: > > > > (messages from free_area_init_nodes() for "memmap=1G!4G" case > > [ 0.000000] Early memory node ranges > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000000001000-0x000000000009efff] > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x00000000bffd6fff] > > [ 0.000000] node 1: [mem 0x0000000140000000-0x000000023fffffff] > > > > This makes kernel think that the end pfn of node 0 is 0 0xbffd7 > > instead of 0x140000, which affects the memory initialization process. > > memmap_init_zone() calls __init_single_page() for each page within a zone, > > so if zone->spanned_pages are underestimated, some pages are left uninitialized. > > > > If I provide 'memmap=1G!7G', the kernel panic does not reproduce and > > kernel messages are like below. > > > > (messages from free_area_init_nodes() for "memmap=1G!7G" case > > [ 0.000000] Early memory node ranges > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000000001000-0x000000000009efff] > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x00000000bffd6fff] > > [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x000000013fffffff] > > [ 0.000000] node 1: [mem 0x0000000140000000-0x00000001bfffffff] > > [ 0.000000] node 1: [mem 0x0000000200000000-0x000000023fffffff] > > > > > > I think that in order to fix this, we need some conditions and/or prechecks > > for memblock layout, does it make sense? Or any other better approaches? Could you share the "e820: BIOS-provided physical RAM map" and "e820: user-defined physical RAM map" output with both memmap= args (1G!4G and 1G!7G)? thanks Oscar Salvador