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 87D28C433FE for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 15:58:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230376AbiKBP6n (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2022 11:58:43 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37222 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231136AbiKBP6X (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2022 11:58:23 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1035.google.com (mail-pj1-x1035.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF9162B623 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 08:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1035.google.com with SMTP id q1-20020a17090a750100b002139ec1e999so2286605pjk.1 for ; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 08:58:22 -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=j4EsJAG1TrXRZNimC+sMPr+IdV0Qvg5OrKkaMfSaj1E=; b=IUvndRCTGt5Xl47Ya3xVX2Bw4Ivs6Gc/j8IPRNUqoa+3ZctcL6Iug0S6iLA5qvSdOR YrPG13hT39AewL7ADMdtty1gRM13oK6pAFt43NRu+ZKfAp2KImldP1otUE8kckEd5hWg chLs8bMKss672M5E8LfZMF4fHn2cRhZdh5gtsjMch0M1nQGMNfFVcIDjGKs+rELx4qzB oFrjBg7Bpjod10e0ybnwfXU102jzahmLGYNax2o+ma8ghD7RmXq0jVljgkUyPudbASoA 1nTZT8f9u4NUcFT7Fa3oX+JkYQ3g0SW6WAdQOtEtrgm1x/7r2HQ6v7dC5qd8NGKH3y8p z4sQ== 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=j4EsJAG1TrXRZNimC+sMPr+IdV0Qvg5OrKkaMfSaj1E=; b=CndzroXTmORJ+AOneMMhBfjWeghf33QcYleM21OksUqnrhP/oCT7SsbKki70bymNoT PqRpeafxhvYY68oR8nM/8eaVb6g7lOqEwCewIp/xBjGUk63n+uZCzLhbUH9nW+OZUETN IEki63z5VW9Uc0y07DFGw18G3N+PjRGoTNU+bmYX9fwRC50JL3yTfvr5z9e1KdmOd3+g 1iUh+ZVwRy1tcgqGoVkGZ5HsDznv3AKYNNtIgrakj4v1Ajp4ZPdpp9Jiyv4SqRWBC6IF 6tZQnUd6tEmzDJBExXsS1TrFH9ZuWel4k1q5pMi6v2CEIrN9vGBPSmfa1iBdRdSNsR9M leaA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2cSnXBgZbUtO0Oawun4BSUjxwwljAnniZWS8+YZwlp5nbxUUx9 OK667YVIBRv3YfrI5XGe2AVDfatm/lwipDrObpExjsE9 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM79ajq5j/u8rRdWFZi8p1hBzBRJSFdsN/TeyLwHrzVLSmbFkEdDyEv2R9FODKPfPqU6Fl8yMTfi7fkSi1zKMFc= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e88e:b0:187:27a7:c8a9 with SMTP id w14-20020a170902e88e00b0018727a7c8a9mr14490752plg.169.1667404702121; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 08:58:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20221031183122.470962-1-shy828301@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Yang Shi Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 08:58:09 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn if the node is offlined To: Michal Hocko Cc: "Zach O'Keefe" , 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 Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 12:14 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 01-11-22 10:12:49, 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. > > OK, I see. > > > 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 > > Correct > > > 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. > > How can node_load[2] > 0 (IIUC max_value > 0 here) if the node is > offline (other than a race with hotplug)? The max_value may be 0 if there is no entry in page cache for that range IIUC. > > > 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; > > } > > Node, this is equally racy. node_online might become false right after > the check. Yes, my point is this could filter out the non-existing node case, for example, the system just has 2 nodes physically, but MAX_NUMNODES > 2. It doesn't prevent offlining, it is still racy, just like other __GFP_THISNODE call sites. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs