Re: Memory hotplug softlock issue

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>]

On Tue 20-11-18 21:58:03, Baoquan He wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 11/20/18 at 02:38pm, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 11/20/18 6:44 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > [PATCH] mm: put_and_wait_on_page_locked() while page is migrated
> > > 
> > > We have all assumed that it is essential to hold a page reference while
> > > waiting on a page lock: partly to guarantee that there is still a struct
> > > page when MEMORY_HOTREMOVE is configured, but also to protect against
> > > reuse of the struct page going to someone who then holds the page locked
> > > indefinitely, when the waiter can reasonably expect timely unlocking.
> > > 
> > > But in fact, so long as wait_on_page_bit_common() does the put_page(),
> > > and is careful not to rely on struct page contents thereafter, there is
> > > no need to hold a reference to the page while waiting on it.  That does
> > 
> > So there's still a moment where refcount is elevated, but hopefully
> > short enough, right? Let's see if it survives Baoquan's stress testing.
> 
> Yes, I applied Hugh's patch 8 hours ago, then our QE Ping operated on
> that machine, after many times of hot removing/adding, the endless
> looping during mirgrating is not seen any more. The test result for
> Hugh's patch is positive. I even suggested Ping increasing the memory
> pressure to "stress -m 250", it still succeeded to offline and remove.
> 
> So I think this patch works to solve the issue. Thanks a lot for your
> help, all of you. 

This is a great news! Thanks for your swift feedback. I will go and try
to review Hugh's patch soon.

> High, will you post a formal patch in a separate thread?
> 
> Meanwhile we found sometime onlining page may not add back all memory
> blocks on one memory board, then hot removing/adding them will cause
> kernel panic. I will investigate further and collect information, see if
> it's a kernel issue or udev issue.

It would be great to get a report in a new email thread.
> 
> Thanks
> Baoquan
> 
> > 
> > > mean that this case cannot go back through the loop: but that's fine for
> > > the page migration case, and even if used more widely, is limited by the
> > > "Stop walking if it's locked" optimization in wake_page_function().
> > > 
> > > Add interface put_and_wait_on_page_locked() to do this, using negative
> > > value of the lock arg to wait_on_page_bit_common() to implement it.
> > > No interruptible or killable variant needed yet, but they might follow:
> > > I have a vague notion that reporting -EINTR should take precedence over
> > > return from wait_on_page_bit_common() without knowing the page state,
> > > so arrange it accordingly - but that may be nothing but pedantic.
> > > 
> > > shrink_page_list()'s __ClearPageLocked(): that was a surprise! this
> > > survived a lot of testing before that showed up.  It does raise the
> > > question: should is_page_cache_freeable() and __remove_mapping() now
> > > treat a PG_waiters page as if an extra reference were held?  Perhaps,
> > > but I don't think it matters much, since shrink_page_list() already
> > > had to win its trylock_page(), so waiters are not very common there: I
> > > noticed no difference when trying the bigger change, and it's surely not
> > > needed while put_and_wait_on_page_locked() is only for page migration.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > @@ -1100,6 +1111,17 @@ static inline int wait_on_page_bit_common(wait_queue_head_t *q,
> > >  			ret = -EINTR;
> > >  			break;
> > >  		}
> > > +
> > > +		if (lock < 0) {
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * We can no longer safely access page->flags:
> > 
> > Hmm...
> > 
> > > +			 * even if CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE is not enabled,
> > > +			 * there is a risk of waiting forever on a page reused
> > > +			 * for something that keeps it locked indefinitely.
> > > +			 * But best check for -EINTR above before breaking.
> > > +			 */
> > > +			break;
> > > +		}
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > >  	finish_wait(q, wait);
> > 
> > ... the code continues by:
> > 
> >         if (thrashing) {
> >                 if (!PageSwapBacked(page))
> > 
> > So maybe we should not set 'thrashing' true when lock < 0?
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > Vlastimil

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs