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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70212C433FE for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 20:09:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229877AbiKAUJX (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2022 16:09:23 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50788 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229462AbiKAUJW (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2022 16:09:22 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x62b.google.com (mail-pl1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9993C1BEAC for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 13:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id c2so14575255plz.11 for ; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 13:09:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=kDQSAuNqqJty1qHOYmC4UJfWiv1afN/k+rqOxq1ZLhc=; b=GGH9cDpPZqJGTDzeSUCsVIL/5fkX40TMgsyl4ia1w9P1fkW+XbcInJgGvMk8dYC7kG Rs1t18M9nOzNO63JqmQ9ytr0D3WHIqWDwH/7SqYuTxoaLlxoglm4fXhscM+fOQ8F8CeI 5MqX0ejN2NqPC02jHUlWPgoZD9t0/Sh4smYrxn7QT0fyB2h2SYNG4POX1UA57L64iWvN Be1DMd3WoskVWg2qxfhwsomukNZXnwSgrrBL1KepUPPI3y0xQ5mqZwj1EXT9yJPA5YtM kW4r2IslmwmF68ncAE2yNWwOeHAT8CiaegUirOk+bEyAuk/P1o17G6Zk785DGmQwYXH7 riPw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=kDQSAuNqqJty1qHOYmC4UJfWiv1afN/k+rqOxq1ZLhc=; b=sjeVDLwEghKHfXt32vjA2OxrqPi52JHX6a4OZdPMPUBY6Vr7A3LZOuhDldCK1oyL0P uTyL9Ul7OPgpO/Il21salbJ+xPPLGzj3c9JYjHW/H0m7XAIynQqGXFw1h+62qgzoDmoI 2eJ1gdVhJk9g1/jTiy9KWT/bwkPpdkvvMDu3IR7hK9vEWuswrLfSQmROjOKd/ZcTJnwI Q6P23THy0HfFrz28p0dh9r8nAJemvdwUUE5PoNJbWg+UHnuPL3L3D5X+9a7xQc2cwZzx GEdFH4wzvx07ZeAUXK9J6cGAst3qcVh9yYE+lMCTBVjAsnKifZDMoHHKZEIRWjxG8Apj QlSg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0QoapufQeU11tfNb54ETN3DALYgOCLB0N4SB5S/yw/iZibiMlD iaQs/+xf2uztxCXPTnV6pbFZ+U0mf4QDKwzYfs59ABML X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM54w8CkSImuyWYXfRguSMXxoJEIuO8a+KpQ6oWp8VuA45lEqdowVb0cO0bxXeBsEvd0i1Zlc4bOdQRmAFWyBms= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d512:b0:181:f1f4:fcb4 with SMTP id b18-20020a170902d51200b00181f1f4fcb4mr21452715plg.102.1667333360084; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 13:09:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20221031183122.470962-1-shy828301@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Yang Shi Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2022 13:09:06 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn if the node is offlined To: "Zach O'Keefe" Cc: Michal Hocko , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 12:14 PM Zach O'Keefe wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 10:13 AM Yang Shi wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 12:54 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > On Mon 31-10-22 17:05:06, Zach O'Keefe wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:08 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 31-10-22 11:31:22, Yang Shi wrote: > > > > > > Syzbot reported the below splat: > > > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3646 at include/linux/gfp.h:221 __alloc_pages_node include/linux/gfp.h:221 [inline] > > > > > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3646 at include/linux/gfp.h:221 hpage_collapse_alloc_page mm/khugepaged.c:807 [inline] > > > > > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3646 at include/linux/gfp.h:221 alloc_charge_hpage+0x802/0xaa0 mm/khugepaged.c:963 > > > > > > Modules linked in: > > > > > > CPU: 1 PID: 3646 Comm: syz-executor210 Not tainted 6.1.0-rc1-syzkaller-00454-ga70385240892 #0 > > > > > > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/11/2022 > > > > > > RIP: 0010:__alloc_pages_node include/linux/gfp.h:221 [inline] > > > > > > RIP: 0010:hpage_collapse_alloc_page mm/khugepaged.c:807 [inline] > > > > > > RIP: 0010:alloc_charge_hpage+0x802/0xaa0 mm/khugepaged.c:963 > > > > > > Code: e5 01 4c 89 ee e8 6e f9 ae ff 4d 85 ed 0f 84 28 fc ff ff e8 70 fc ae ff 48 8d 6b ff 4c 8d 63 07 e9 16 fc ff ff e8 5e fc ae ff <0f> 0b e9 96 fa ff ff 41 bc 1a 00 00 00 e9 86 fd ff ff e8 47 fc ae > > > > > > RSP: 0018:ffffc90003fdf7d8 EFLAGS: 00010293 > > > > > > RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000000 > > > > > > RDX: ffff888077f457c0 RSI: ffffffff81cd8f42 RDI: 0000000000000001 > > > > > > RBP: ffff888079388c0c R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000 > > > > > > R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000000 > > > > > > R13: dffffc0000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000 > > > > > > FS: 00007f6b48ccf700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9b00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > > > > > > CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > > > > > > CR2: 00007f6b48a819f0 CR3: 00000000171e7000 CR4: 00000000003506e0 > > > > > > DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 > > > > > > DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 > > > > > > Call Trace: > > > > > > > > > > > > collapse_file+0x1ca/0x5780 mm/khugepaged.c:1715 > > > > > > > > > > This is quite weird, isn't it? alloc_charge_hpage is selecting the most > > > > > busy node (as per collapse_control). How come this can be an offline > > > > > node? Is a parallel memory hotplug happening? > > > > > > > > TBH -- I did not look closely at the syzbot reproducer (let alone > > > > attempt to run it) and assumed this was the case. Taking a quick look, > > > > at least memory hot remove is enabled: > > > > > > > > CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTPLUG=y > > > > CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE=y > > > > CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG=y > > > > CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG_DEFAULT_ONLINE=y > > > > CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE=y > > > > > > > > But looking at the C reproducer, I don't immediately see anywhere > > > > where we offline nodes. I'll try to run this tomorrow to make sure I'm > > > > not missing something real here. > > > > > > Looking slightly closer at hpage_collapse_scan_file I think that it is > > > possible that xas_for_each simply doesn't find any entries in the page > > > cache and with khugepaged_max_ptes_none == HPAGE_PMD_NR we can fall back > > > to collapse_file even without any real entries. > > > > The khugepaged_max_ptes_none can't be HPAGE_PMD_NR, it must be <= > > (HPAGE_PMD_NR - 1), but MADV_COLLAPSE does ignore it. > > > > But a closer look at the code about how to pick up the preferred node, > > there seems to be a corner case for MADV_COLLAPSE. > > > > The code tried to do some balance if several nodes have the same hit > > record. Basically it does conceptually: > > * If the target_node <= last_target_node, then iterate from > > last_target_node + 1 to MAX_NUMNODES (1024 on default config) > > * If the max_value == node_load[nid], then target_node = nid > > > > So assuming the system has 2 nodes, the target_node is 0 and the > > last_target_node is 1, if MADV_COLLAPSE path is hit, then it may > > return 2 for target_node, but it is actually not existing (offline), > > so the warn is triggered. > > > > You're one step ahead of me, Yang. I was just debugging the syzbot C > reproducer, and this seems to be exactly the case that is happening. > > > The below patch should be able to fix it: > > > > diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c > > index ea0d186bc9d4..d24405e6736b 100644 > > --- a/mm/khugepaged.c > > +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c > > @@ -787,7 +787,8 @@ static int hpage_collapse_find_target_node(struct > > collapse_control *cc) > > if (target_node <= cc->last_target_node) > > for (nid = cc->last_target_node + 1; nid < MAX_NUMNODES; > > nid++) > > - if (max_value == cc->node_load[nid]) { > > + if (node_online(nid) && > > + max_value == cc->node_load[nid]) { > > target_node = nid; > > break; > > } > > > > Thanks for the patch. I think this is the right place to do the check. > > This is slightly tangential - but I don't want to send a new mail > about it -- but I wonder if we should be doing __GFP_THISNODE + > explicit node vs having hpage_collapse_find_target_node() set a > nodemask. We could then provide fallback nodes for ties, or if some > node contained > some threshold number of pages. We definitely could, but I'm not sure whether we should make this code more complicated or not. TBH I think it is already overengineered. If fallback is fine, then just removing __GFP_THISNODE may be fine too. Actually I doubt there would be any noticeable difference for real life workload. > > > > But the mere possibility of the hotplug race should be a sufficient > > > ground to remove those WARN_ONs > > > > Agreed. > > > The warn_on did help to catch this bug. But the reasons for removing > > it still stand TBH, so we may consider to move this warn_on to the > > callers which care about it? > > I didn't come across in a cursory search -- but if there are callers > which try to synchronize with hot remove to ensure __GFP_THISNODE > succeeds, then sure, the warn makes sense to them. Yeah, we are on the same page, the specific warning could be added by the caller instead of in the common path. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > -- > > > Michal Hocko > > > SUSE Labs