From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (pdx-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.123]) by aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E92C433EF for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 05:04:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46657208D4 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 05:04:27 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 46657208D4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ah.jp.nec.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752651AbeFNFBT convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2018 01:01:19 -0400 Received: from tyo162.gate.nec.co.jp ([114.179.232.162]:58981 "EHLO tyo162.gate.nec.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751872AbeFNFBR (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2018 01:01:17 -0400 Received: from mailgate01.nec.co.jp ([114.179.233.122]) by tyo162.gate.nec.co.jp (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPS id w5E50dhQ024883 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:00:39 +0900 Received: from mailsv01.nec.co.jp (mailgate-v.nec.co.jp [10.204.236.94]) by mailgate01.nec.co.jp (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTP id w5E50dZ0022582; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:00:39 +0900 Received: from mail02.kamome.nec.co.jp (mail02.kamome.nec.co.jp [10.25.43.5]) by mailsv01.nec.co.jp (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTP id w5E4xr7U023109; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:00:39 +0900 Received: from bpxc99gp.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.151] [10.38.151.151]) by mail01b.kamome.nec.co.jp with ESMTP id BT-MMP-1161287; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:56:32 +0900 Received: from BPXM23GP.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.215]) by BPXC23GP.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.151]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:56:31 +0900 From: Naoya Horiguchi To: Oscar Salvador CC: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Pavel Tatashin , Steven Sistare , Daniel Jordan , Bob Picco , Matthew Wilcox , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , "mingo@kernel.org" , "dan.j.williams@intel.com" , Huang Ying Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm: zero remaining unavailable struct pages (Re: kernel panic in reading /proc/kpageflags when enabling RAM-simulated PMEM) Thread-Topic: [PATCH v1] mm: zero remaining unavailable struct pages (Re: kernel panic in reading /proc/kpageflags when enabling RAM-simulated PMEM) Thread-Index: AQHUAtkgPBcB1vgLY0uIXLgyPjVYAKRdR84AgAFTvQA= Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 04:56:30 +0000 Message-ID: <20180614045630.GA17860@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> References: <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> <20180607094921.GA8545@techadventures.net> <20180607100256.GA9129@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20180613054107.GA5329@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20180613084032.GA32428@techadventures.net> In-Reply-To: <20180613084032.GA32428@techadventures.net> Accept-Language: en-US, ja-JP Content-Language: ja-JP X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.51.8.81] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-ID: <198CEC3F902121409996458ABC1987F2@gisp.nec.co.jp> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:40:32AM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 05:41:08AM +0000, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I wrote a patch for this issue. > > There was a discussion about prechecking approach, but I finally found > > out it's hard to make change on memblock after numa_init, so I take > > another apporach (see patch description). > > > > I'm glad if you check that it works for you. > > > > Thanks, > > Naoya Horiguchi > > --- > > From: Naoya Horiguchi > > Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:43:27 +0900 > > Subject: [PATCH] mm: zero remaining unavailable struct pages > > > > There is a kernel panic that is triggered when reading /proc/kpageflags > > on the kernel booted with kernel parameter 'memmap=nn[KMG]!ss[KMG]': > > > > BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at fffffffffffffffe > > PGD 9b20e067 P4D 9b20e067 PUD 9b210067 PMD 0 > > Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI > > CPU: 2 PID: 1728 Comm: page-types Not tainted 4.17.0-rc6-mm1-v4.17-rc6-180605-0816-00236-g2dfb086ef02c+ #160 > > Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.fc28 04/01/2014 > > RIP: 0010:stable_page_flags+0x27/0x3c0 > > Code: 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 ff 0f 84 a0 03 00 00 41 54 55 49 89 fc 53 48 8b 57 08 48 8b 2f 48 8d 42 ff 83 e2 01 48 0f 44 c7 <48> 8b 00 f6 c4 01 0f 84 10 03 00 00 31 db 49 8b 54 24 08 4c 89 e7 > > RSP: 0018:ffffbbd44111fde0 EFLAGS: 00010202 > > RAX: fffffffffffffffe RBX: 00007fffffffeff9 RCX: 0000000000000000 > > RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000000000000202 RDI: ffffed1182fff5c0 > > RBP: ffffffffffffffff R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000001 > > R10: ffffbbd44111fed8 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffed1182fff5c0 > > R13: 00000000000bffd7 R14: 0000000002fff5c0 R15: ffffbbd44111ff10 > > FS: 00007efc4335a500(0000) GS:ffff93a5bfc00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > > CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > > CR2: fffffffffffffffe CR3: 00000000b2a58000 CR4: 00000000001406e0 > > Call Trace: > > kpageflags_read+0xc7/0x120 > > proc_reg_read+0x3c/0x60 > > __vfs_read+0x36/0x170 > > vfs_read+0x89/0x130 > > ksys_pread64+0x71/0x90 > > do_syscall_64+0x5b/0x160 > > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 > > RIP: 0033:0x7efc42e75e23 > > Code: 09 00 ba 9f 01 00 00 e8 ab 81 f4 ff 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 90 83 3d 29 0a 2d 00 00 75 13 49 89 ca b8 11 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 34 c3 48 83 ec 08 e8 db d3 01 00 48 89 04 24 > > > > According to kernel bisection, this problem became visible due to commit > > f7f99100d8d9 which changes how struct pages are initialized. > > > > Memblock layout affects the pfn ranges covered by node/zone. Consider > > that we have a VM with 2 NUMA nodes and each node has 4GB memory, and > > the default (no memmap= given) memblock layout is like below: > > > > MEMBLOCK configuration: > > memory size = 0x00000001fff75c00 reserved size = 0x000000000300c000 > > memory.cnt = 0x4 > > memory[0x0] [0x0000000000001000-0x000000000009efff], 0x000000000009e000 bytes on node 0 flags: 0x0 > > memory[0x1] [0x0000000000100000-0x00000000bffd6fff], 0x00000000bfed7000 bytes on node 0 flags: 0x0 > > memory[0x2] [0x0000000100000000-0x000000013fffffff], 0x0000000040000000 bytes on node 0 flags: 0x0 > > memory[0x3] [0x0000000140000000-0x000000023fffffff], 0x0000000100000000 bytes on node 1 flags: 0x0 > > ... > > > > If you give memmap=1G!4G (so it just covers memory[0x2]), > > the range [0x100000000-0x13fffffff] is gone: > > > > MEMBLOCK configuration: > > memory size = 0x00000001bff75c00 reserved size = 0x000000000300c000 > > memory.cnt = 0x3 > > memory[0x0] [0x0000000000001000-0x000000000009efff], 0x000000000009e000 bytes on node 0 flags: 0x0 > > memory[0x1] [0x0000000000100000-0x00000000bffd6fff], 0x00000000bfed7000 bytes on node 0 flags: 0x0 > > memory[0x2] [0x0000000140000000-0x000000023fffffff], 0x0000000100000000 bytes on node 1 flags: 0x0 > > ... > > > > This causes shrinking node 0's pfn range because it is calculated by > > the address range of memblock.memory. So some of struct pages in the > > gap range are left uninitialized. > > > > We have a function zero_resv_unavail() which does zeroing the struct > > pages outside memblock.memory, but currently it covers only the reserved > > unavailable range (i.e. memblock.memory && !memblock.reserved). > > This patch extends it to cover all unavailable range, which fixes > > the reported issue. > > > > Fixes: f7f99100d8d9 ("mm: stop zeroing memory during allocation in vmemmap") > > Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi > > --- > > include/linux/memblock.h | 16 ---------------- > > mm/page_alloc.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h > > index ca59883c8364..f191e51c5d2a 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h > > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h > > @@ -236,22 +236,6 @@ void __next_mem_pfn_range(int *idx, int nid, unsigned long *out_start_pfn, > > for_each_mem_range_rev(i, &memblock.memory, &memblock.reserved, \ > > nid, flags, p_start, p_end, p_nid) > > > > -/** > > - * for_each_resv_unavail_range - iterate through reserved and unavailable memory > > - * @i: u64 used as loop variable > > - * @flags: pick from blocks based on memory attributes > > - * @p_start: ptr to phys_addr_t for start address of the range, can be %NULL > > - * @p_end: ptr to phys_addr_t for end address of the range, can be %NULL > > - * > > - * Walks over unavailable but reserved (reserved && !memory) areas of memblock. > > - * Available as soon as memblock is initialized. > > - * Note: because this memory does not belong to any physical node, flags and > > - * nid arguments do not make sense and thus not exported as arguments. > > - */ > > -#define for_each_resv_unavail_range(i, p_start, p_end) \ > > - for_each_mem_range(i, &memblock.reserved, &memblock.memory, \ > > - NUMA_NO_NODE, MEMBLOCK_NONE, p_start, p_end, NULL) > > - > > static inline void memblock_set_region_flags(struct memblock_region *r, > > unsigned long flags) > > { > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > > index 1772513358e9..098f7c2c127b 100644 > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > > @@ -6487,25 +6487,40 @@ void __paginginit free_area_init_node(int nid, unsigned long *zones_size, > > * struct pages which are reserved in memblock allocator and their fields > > * may be accessed (for example page_to_pfn() on some configuration accesses > > * flags). We must explicitly zero those struct pages. > > + * > > + * This function also addresses a similar issue where struct pages are left > > + * uninitialized because the physical address range is not covered by > > + * memblock.memory or memblock.reserved. That could happen when memblock > > + * layout is manually configured via memmap=. > > */ > > void __paginginit zero_resv_unavail(void) > > { > > phys_addr_t start, end; > > unsigned long pfn; > > u64 i, pgcnt; > > + phys_addr_t next = 0; > > > > /* > > - * Loop through ranges that are reserved, but do not have reported > > - * physical memory backing. > > + * Loop through unavailable ranges not covered by memblock.memory. > > */ > > pgcnt = 0; > > - for_each_resv_unavail_range(i, &start, &end) { > > - for (pfn = PFN_DOWN(start); pfn < PFN_UP(end); pfn++) { > > - if (!pfn_valid(ALIGN_DOWN(pfn, pageblock_nr_pages))) > > - continue; > > - mm_zero_struct_page(pfn_to_page(pfn)); > > - pgcnt++; > > + for_each_mem_range(i, &memblock.memory, NULL, > > + NUMA_NO_NODE, MEMBLOCK_NONE, &start, &end, NULL) { > > + if (next < start) { > > + for (pfn = PFN_DOWN(next); pfn < PFN_UP(start); pfn++) { > > + if (!pfn_valid(ALIGN_DOWN(pfn, pageblock_nr_pages))) > > + continue; > > + mm_zero_struct_page(pfn_to_page(pfn)); > > + pgcnt++; > > + } > > } > > + next = end; > > + } > > + for (pfn = PFN_DOWN(next); pfn < max_pfn; pfn++) { > > + if (!pfn_valid(ALIGN_DOWN(pfn, pageblock_nr_pages))) > > + continue; > > + mm_zero_struct_page(pfn_to_page(pfn)); > > + pgcnt++; > > } > > Hi Naoya, > > Is the second loop really needed? > > AFAIK, max_pfn is set to the latest pfn of E820_TYPE_RAM type, and since > you are going through all memory ranges within memblock.memory, and then assigning next = end, > I think that at the time we are done with the first loop, next will always point > to max_pfn (I only checked it for x86). > Am I right o did I overlooked something? Hi Oscar, Thank you for the comment. Some archs do set max_pfn to end pfn of E820_TYPE_RAM, but some archs (s390, arm, mips, ...) seem to determine max_pfn in their own way. I'm not sure this problem is visible in such archs. > > Besides that, I did some tests and I can no longer reproduce the error. > So feel free to add: > > Tested-by: Oscar Salvador Thank you! - Naoya > > > > > /* > > @@ -6516,7 +6531,7 @@ void __paginginit zero_resv_unavail(void) > > * this code can be removed. > > */ > > if (pgcnt) > > - pr_info("Reserved but unavailable: %lld pages", pgcnt); > > + pr_info("Zeroed struct page in unavailable ranges: %lld pages", pgcnt); > > } > > #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK */ > > > > -- > > 2.7.4 > > > > Thanks > > Best Regards > Oscar Salvador >