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 E8078C433EF for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:24:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 942D7208CB for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:24:44 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 942D7208CB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=techadventures.net 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 S932215AbeFNLYm (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:24:42 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:40743 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755050AbeFNLYk (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:24:40 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id n5-v6so11232149wmc.5 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 04:24:39 -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:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=gJRAPW+Vr8CnkkF82Z8iXnVr9MJ9VGYFGooz4weDteo=; b=BgqZUkwZyxM4mmHD4/tE6gZ3+iLim1+sZnunIp1UuE633p4TkWcwlh2g5slil/BC90 wr55+6nBXNuFcGnqje+Z4rig6MyBkcTAkm3yyegMRLtyevCkADqEsA8dnT1VRwK4Le0+ DZF2NZm7xoHs+svdYSZ4ZljQNmgbh7/o+Z2f9WlXt1KW9+2Oni+TaTW5+alaUJu7eHS8 Bp0oZqG+Tx/A6PLLJUkJ/UVfHkWlvx6glmLcg7vIs1skGwITZtsiHoKQ9av12XjeHVvn +e4VQgCVO5KRSlit3dwoIm3tSFSnR0knauenN/+0eOnZQr9fZ7EoLDmAcc6DaDhoEVHW wM8w== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0pCFpmc70aE9xC0XLBHUUhBNqdVnrUi1ZQ5Cxarb60HNf0UxYt xVy9e8gVs0kC20vWHuMsDd8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJx3MxmHwzz+QvxHyM5R0OCSpGstxmIydinWbp3FMPQ+CZfK23BcAa3dtfjQdGvaoS6ttsY7A== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:bc3:: with SMTP id 186-v6mr1670892wml.39.1528975478671; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 04:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from techadventures.net (techadventures.net. [62.201.165.239]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x5-v6sm5787022wrr.3.2018.06.14.04.24.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Jun 2018 04:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by techadventures.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 671791234C7; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:24:37 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:24:37 +0200 From: Oscar Salvador To: Naoya Horiguchi Cc: Michal Hocko , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Pavel Tatashin , Steven Sistare , Daniel Jordan , Matthew Wilcox , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , "mingo@kernel.org" , "dan.j.williams@intel.com" , Huang Ying Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/e820: put !E820_TYPE_RAM regions into memblock.reserved Message-ID: <20180614112437.GA12511@techadventures.net> References: <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> <20180613090700.GG13364@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180614051618.GB17860@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20180614053859.GA9863@techadventures.net> <20180614063454.GA32419@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20180614072103.GA10582@techadventures.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180614072103.GA10582@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 14, 2018 at 09:21:03AM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 06:34:55AM +0000, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 07:38:59AM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 05:16:18AM +0000, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > ... > > > > > > > > My concern is that there are a few E820 memory types rather than > > > > E820_TYPE_RAM and E820_TYPE_RESERVED, and I'm not sure that putting them > > > > all into memblock.reserved is really acceptable. > > > > > > Hi Naoya, > > > > > > Maybe you could just add to memblock.reserved, all unavailable ranges within > > > E820_TYPE_RAM. > > > Actually, in your original patch, you are walking memblock.memory, which should > > > only contain E820_TYPE_RAM ranges (talking about x86). > > > > > > So I think the below would to the trick as well? > > > > > > @@ -1248,6 +1276,7 @@ void __init e820__memblock_setup(void) > > > { > > > int i; > > > u64 end; > > > + u64 next = 0; > > > > > > /* > > > * The bootstrap memblock region count maximum is 128 entries > > > > > > @@ -1269,6 +1299,14 @@ void __init e820__memblock_setup(void) > > > > > > if (entry->type != E820_TYPE_RAM && entry->type != E820_TYPE_RESERVED_KERN) > > > continue; > > > > > > + > > > + if (entry->type == E820_TYPE_RAM) > > > + if (next < entry->addr) { > > > + memblock_reserve (next, next + (entry->addr - next)); > > > + next = end; > > > + } > > > > > > With the above patch, I can no longer see the issues either. > > > > I double-checked and this change looks good to me. > > > > > > > > Although, there is a difference between this and your original patch. > > > In your original patch, you are just zeroing the pages, while with this one (or with your second patch), > > > we will zero the page in reserve_bootmem_region(), but that function also init > > > some other fields of the struct page: > > > > > > mm_zero_struct_page(page); > > > set_page_links(page, zone, nid, pfn); > > > init_page_count(page); > > > page_mapcount_reset(page); > > > page_cpupid_reset_last(page); > > > > > > So I am not sure we want to bother doing that for pages that are really unreachable. > > > > I think that considering that /proc/kpageflags can check them, some data > > (even if it's trivial) might be better than just zeros. > > > > Here's the updated patch. > > Thanks for the suggestion and testing! > > > > --- > > From: Naoya Horiguchi > > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:44:36 +0900 > > Subject: [PATCH] x86/e820: put !E820_TYPE_RAM regions into memblock.reserved > > > > 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 within the reserved unavailable range (i.e. memblock.memory && > > !memblock.reserved). This patch utilizes it to cover all unavailable > > ranges by putting them into memblock.reserved. I just spotted this. It seems that the changelog has not been updated. It still refers to zero_resv_unavail(), while this patch takes a different approach. > > > > Fixes: f7f99100d8d9 ("mm: stop zeroing memory during allocation in vmemmap") > > Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi > > Suggested-by: Oscar Salvador > > Tested-by: Oscar Salvador > > --- > > arch/x86/kernel/e820.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c > > index d1f25c831447..d15ef47ea354 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c > > @@ -1248,6 +1248,7 @@ void __init e820__memblock_setup(void) > > { > > int i; > > u64 end; > > + u64 next = 0; > > > > /* > > * The bootstrap memblock region count maximum is 128 entries > > @@ -1270,6 +1271,17 @@ void __init e820__memblock_setup(void) > > if (entry->type != E820_TYPE_RAM && entry->type != E820_TYPE_RESERVED_KERN) > > continue; > > > > + /* > > + * Ranges unavailable in E820_TYPE_RAM are put into > > + * memblock.reserved, to make sure that struct pages in such > > + * regions are not left uninitialized after bootup. > > + */ > > + if (entry->type == E820_TYPE_RAM) > > + if (next < entry->addr) { > > + memblock_reserve (next, next + (entry->addr - next)); > > + next = end; > > + } > > + > > memblock_add(entry->addr, entry->size); > > } > > Thanks Naoya! > > Andrew: In case you consider to take this patch instead of the first one, > could you please replace "osalvador@techadventures.net" with "osalvador@suse.de"? > > Thanks > > Best Regards > Oscar Salvador > Best Regards Oscar Salvador