Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mhocko@kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>,
	vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] arm64/mm: fix a bogus GFP flag in pgd_alloc()
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 00:33:42 +0300
Message-ID: <20190605213342.GA7023@rapoport-lnx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190604143020.GD24467@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>

On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 03:30:20PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 03:23:38PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 10:00:36AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > The commit "arm64: switch to generic version of pte allocation"
> > > introduced endless failures during boot like,
> > > 
> > > kobject_add_internal failed for pgd_cache(285:chronyd.service) (error:
> > > -2 parent: cgroup)
> > > 
> > > It turns out __GFP_ACCOUNT is passed to kernel page table allocations
> > > and then later memcg finds out those don't belong to any cgroup.
> > 
> > Mike, I understood from [1] that this wasn't expected to be a problem,
> > as the accounting should bypass kernel threads.
> > 
> > Was that assumption wrong, or is something different happening here?
> > 
> > > backtrace:
> > >   kobject_add_internal
> > >   kobject_init_and_add
> > >   sysfs_slab_add+0x1a8
> > >   __kmem_cache_create
> > >   create_cache
> > >   memcg_create_kmem_cache
> > >   memcg_kmem_cache_create_func
> > >   process_one_work
> > >   worker_thread
> > >   kthread
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm64/mm/pgd.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/pgd.c b/arch/arm64/mm/pgd.c
> > > index 769516cb6677..53c48f5c8765 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/pgd.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/pgd.c
> > > @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ pgd_t *pgd_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > >  	if (PGD_SIZE == PAGE_SIZE)
> > >  		return (pgd_t *)__get_free_page(gfp);
> > >  	else
> > > -		return kmem_cache_alloc(pgd_cache, gfp);
> > > +		return kmem_cache_alloc(pgd_cache, GFP_PGTABLE_KERNEL);
> > 
> > This is used to allocate PGDs for both user and kernel pagetables (e.g.
> > for the efi runtime services), so while this may fix the regression, I'm
> > not sure it's the right fix.
> 
> I see that since [1], pgd_alloc() was updated to special-case the
> init_mm, which is not sufficient for cases like:
> 
> 	efi_mm.pgd = pgd_alloc(&efi_mm)
> 
> ... which occurs in a kthread.
> 
> So let's have a pgd_alloc_kernel() to make that explicit.

I've hit "send" before seeing this one :)

Well, to be completely on the safe side an explicit pgd_alloc_kernel()
sounds right. Then it won't be subject to future changes in memcg and will
always "Do The Right Thing".
 
> Thanks,
> Mark.
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.


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

  reply index

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-04 14:00 Qian Cai
2019-06-04 14:23 ` Mark Rutland
2019-06-04 14:30   ` Mark Rutland
2019-06-05 21:33     ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2019-06-04 14:54   ` Mike Rapoport
2019-06-10 11:43   ` Will Deacon
2019-06-10 17:26     ` Qian Cai
2019-06-11 10:03       ` Mark Rutland
2019-06-11 12:41         ` Mike Rapoport
2019-06-11 12:46           ` Qian Cai
2019-06-12  6:57             ` Mike Rapoport
2019-06-12 18:35               ` Qian Cai
2019-06-11 13:02           ` Mark Rutland
2019-06-13 12:11         ` Mike Rapoport
2019-06-13 13:22           ` Qian Cai
2019-06-13 19:44             ` Mike Rapoport
2019-06-17 15:12           ` Mike Rapoport
2019-06-17 16:36             ` Will Deacon
2019-06-18  6:12               ` Mike Rapoport
2019-06-18  6:54                 ` Will Deacon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190605213342.GA7023@rapoport-lnx \
    --to=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cai@lca.pw \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/0 linux-arm-kernel/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1 linux-arm-kernel/git/1.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-arm-kernel linux-arm-kernel/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel \
		linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org infradead-linux-arm-kernel@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-arm-kernel

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox