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=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD9EC4332D for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:13:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7C22076E for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:13:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="MWL8x5y6" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4B7C22076E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=shutemov.name Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id D07726B00AD; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 20:12:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id CBACB6B00AF; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 20:12:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id BCDB96B00B7; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 20:12:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3C776B00AD for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 20:12:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 655D3181AEF10 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:12:59 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76610186478.25.girls66_715df5443a031 X-HE-Tag: girls66_715df5443a031 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6349 Received: from mail-lj1-f193.google.com (mail-lj1-f193.google.com [209.85.208.193]) by imf22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:12:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-f193.google.com with SMTP id f13so474545ljp.0 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:12:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=lPrGEwKRXyO9yXOFR59fcYZi9g17e4yyfNBd9nprDqQ=; b=MWL8x5y6FCR54ZVgurHR1a4U2f2qAK+jQbBFBpVG0ZAaTwG4qeq2SzJdTWmYih0deb 3io78o73rd2gFvbgv8y2FL8afylt+4D3TknLuqgJ2aXvT5n/jFG40Nk1Pv4aGYJzvb2W z+9DCbkj5orhMg0Mxl3d5ao7TfDm0L+8xh/MB/XsEC073kHS04Zh7xiLeBINBy5Tsm7d dJgioQToL/CjHmVind6OINoE6sxkGVAvEcbd/yBwWdgzJFSHvGtN0GvHEJ9ZVnwu4wpa qJWJiEaYh9Rne96GtYsMYZFDkGVXKfF/QBZuu/m7W1eC0yAjoYAGiUfqyT7i6eD42KkM 0dcQ== 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; bh=lPrGEwKRXyO9yXOFR59fcYZi9g17e4yyfNBd9nprDqQ=; b=KCY5jisBSpfRO9gaN+//HeoE3TXP2DNFCDrmyNy0DW+E81DzK0N2Q8vziHFXqoAQKV Sqnb353jE+yA4DewTqhOC04BW6irQ2VfH4CGDwnRd+1nQttgqPiiNjxXUjqAxcyUPKwa MFJ0r1jzPQqu5IZ6Pj5IUi2ALOI+TAejqgz4ik90JC9WAL45ZFfb7+vacN/ySj99aiOE CuvkJfyPPdSDgWuhPqFuRgE+dMhCIyVar9NWE3cUZP/y2PKIHPV9NTLwPakLR16isy/4 k5tJNI8ngCMpCrU8ftvoK8OX7UGUl1nOPjzgHwhCgNyUT9MSjrTKIw8NW3iTs/3RpOSJ TrxA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2s8BrNWmPS8RG8BXbGgQ82ZRI/2vgepH8jJz9ECwb0/okiZRFS NBzmXS0EZaU8gBSgyHtdFF20Pw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vu5tKNdJ9YZUqehURNqjhJh3Yv8MtI6Yf+YXJFfbrRf0fgmxZiKyfLhCqNfc7ljD8Z8N0UuvQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:110b:: with SMTP id d11mr349708ljo.52.1584576777458; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:12:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from box.localdomain ([86.57.175.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q4sm138647lfd.82.2020.03.18.17.12.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by box.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 080D71025D1; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 03:12:59 +0300 (+03) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 03:12:58 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Yang Shi Cc: kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, hughd@google.com, aarcange@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: khugepaged: fix potential page state corruption Message-ID: <20200319001258.creziw6ffw4jvwl3@box> References: <1584573582-116702-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1584573582-116702-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 07:19:42AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote: > When khugepaged collapses anonymous pages, the base pages would be freed > via pagevec or free_page_and_swap_cache(). But, the anonymous page may > be added back to LRU, then it might result in the below race: > > CPU A CPU B > khugepaged: > unlock page > putback_lru_page > add to lru > page reclaim: > isolate this page > try_to_unmap > page_remove_rmap <-- corrupt _mapcount > > It looks nothing would prevent the pages from isolating by reclaimer. Hm. Why should it? try_to_unmap() doesn't exclude parallel page unmapping. _mapcount is protected by ptl. And this particular _mapcount pin is reachable for reclaim as it's not part of usual page table tree. Basically try_to_unmap() will never succeeds until we give up the _mapcount on khugepaged side. I don't see the issue right away. > The other problem is the page's active or unevictable flag might be > still set when freeing the page via free_page_and_swap_cache(). So what? > The putback_lru_page() would not clear those two flags if the pages are > released via pagevec, it sounds nothing prevents from isolating active > or unevictable pages. Again, why should it? vmscan is equipped to deal with this. > However I didn't really run into these problems, just in theory by visual > inspection. > > And, it also seems unnecessary to have the pages add back to LRU again since > they are about to be freed when reaching this point. So, clearing active > and unevictable flags, unlocking and dropping refcount from isolate > instead of calling putback_lru_page() as what page cache collapse does. Hm? But we do call putback_lru_page() on the way out. I do not follow. > > Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov > Cc: Hugh Dickins > Cc: Andrea Arcangeli > Signed-off-by: Yang Shi > --- > mm/khugepaged.c | 10 +++++++++- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c > index b679908..f42fa4e 100644 > --- a/mm/khugepaged.c > +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c > @@ -673,7 +673,6 @@ static void __collapse_huge_page_copy(pte_t *pte, struct page *page, > src_page = pte_page(pteval); > copy_user_highpage(page, src_page, address, vma); > VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_mapcount(src_page) != 1, src_page); > - release_pte_page(src_page); > /* > * ptl mostly unnecessary, but preempt has to > * be disabled to update the per-cpu stats > @@ -687,6 +686,15 @@ static void __collapse_huge_page_copy(pte_t *pte, struct page *page, > pte_clear(vma->vm_mm, address, _pte); > page_remove_rmap(src_page, false); > spin_unlock(ptl); > + > + dec_node_page_state(src_page, > + NR_ISOLATED_ANON + page_is_file_cache(src_page)); > + ClearPageActive(src_page); > + ClearPageUnevictable(src_page); > + unlock_page(src_page); > + /* Drop refcount from isolate */ > + put_page(src_page); > + > free_page_and_swap_cache(src_page); > } > } > -- > 1.8.3.1 > > -- Kirill A. Shutemov