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=-12.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable 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 4218BC83016 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 16:56:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE72320706 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 16:56:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="fcnlTPWW" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729010AbgK3Q4Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2020 11:56:24 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:34186 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728924AbgK3Q4X (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2020 11:56:23 -0500 Received: from kernel.org (unknown [87.71.85.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76E982076E; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 16:55:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1606755342; bh=sMhubw65fYfWbhsLREknMs2fRzNGPSEU7m7l8IbsNoM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fcnlTPWWFJgwnU2Ro0WvirNKqvBcmoabXOCJ8MZy4TMSa5azPKDua3w5O4hsgWnPu 6Kshu/TFwrw923A8pBuglb+1LUlyEtdcnJyH447QQAfMZuweoNj350AbvDJQrayjgr p/vN0ho8NNKktcmmnojMY9OYCqk3paaLJgaj5nkQ= Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:55:32 +0200 From: Mike Rapoport To: Rahul Gopakumar Cc: "bhe@redhat.com" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "natechancellor@gmail.com" , "ndesaulniers@google.com" , "clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com" , "rostedt@goodmis.org" , Rajender M , Yiu Cho Lau , Peter Jonasson , Venkatesh Rajaram Subject: Re: Performance regressions in "boot_time" tests in Linux 5.8 Kernel Message-ID: <20201130165532.GE557259@kernel.org> References: <20201022040440.GX25604@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <20201102143035.GA3177@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <20201112145149.GN8486@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <20201122010844.GR8486@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Rahul, On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 03:03:40PM +0000, Rahul Gopakumar wrote: > Hi Baoquan, > > We applied the new patch to 5.10 rc3 and tested it. We are still > observing the same page corruption issue which we saw with the > old patch. This is causing 3 secs delay in boot time. > > Attached dmesg log from the new patch and also from vanilla > 5.10 rc3 kernel. > > There are multiple lines like below in the dmesg log of the > new patch. > > "BUG: Bad page state in process swapper pfn:ab08001" Can you please run your test with the below patch and send output of dmesg | grep defer diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c index eaa227a479e4..ce7ec660c777 100644 --- a/mm/page_alloc.c +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c @@ -455,6 +455,7 @@ defer_init(int nid, unsigned long pfn, unsigned long end_pfn) nr_initialised++; if ((nr_initialised > PAGES_PER_SECTION) && (pfn & (PAGES_PER_SECTION - 1)) == 0) { + pr_info("=> %s: nid: %d pfn: %lx\n", __func__, nid, pfn); NODE_DATA(nid)->first_deferred_pfn = pfn; return true; } > ________________________________________ > From: bhe@redhat.com > Sent: 22 November 2020 6:38 AM > To: Rahul Gopakumar > Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; akpm@linux-foundation.org; natechancellor@gmail.com; ndesaulniers@google.com; clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com; rostedt@goodmis.org; Rajender M; Yiu Cho Lau; Peter Jonasson; Venkatesh Rajaram > Subject: Re: Performance regressions in "boot_time" tests in Linux 5.8 Kernel > > On 11/20/20 at 03:11am, Rahul Gopakumar wrote: > > Hi Baoquan, > > > > To which commit should we apply the draft patch. We tried applying > > the patch to the commit 3e4fb4346c781068610d03c12b16c0cfb0fd24a3 > > (the one we used for applying the previous patch) but it fails. > > I tested on 5.10-rc3+. You can append below change to the old patch in > your testing kernel. > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > index fa6076e1a840..5e5b74e88d69 100644 > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -448,6 +448,8 @@ defer_init(int nid, unsigned long pfn, unsigned long end_pfn) > if (end_pfn < pgdat_end_pfn(NODE_DATA(nid))) > return false; > > + if (NODE_DATA(nid)->first_deferred_pfn != ULONG_MAX) > + return true; > /* > * We start only with one section of pages, more pages are added as > * needed until the rest of deferred pages are initialized. > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.