Received: by 2002:ac0:8c9a:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id r26csp5185794ima; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 07:41:11 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZZIQHP7jqj1RI/TkZ8YYLWpAQRF+Ay7mC1kHQf8qW/7A/h5MnlCSGxM8gfzyqvjYFLAGGm X-Received: by 2002:a63:170c:: with SMTP id x12mr4979209pgl.364.1549381271661; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 07:41:11 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1549381271; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=LUMj/8NmfnOoidljhEiB/6Khexsqw/I5mclvPmpuM29968pBEFz5HRb2vWwg87sTWi 474hGvZtulKnkPBror04X8nGGUcs7m+S9tE9q7EIgGmhSFnG818ET9MmgmsRvlllBR4B PQI5bgNu6tEpK47EbB35QO81r5+RpgJYRB8Y43LwB02elUyelq7P62auLtPrav7UVX30 OEIpT5hGX9baA2m/CeON1/EDSqEIOtfqjJMOtQ541fOO69kjTEK+Rdajeaut5y+9FXOK by/dwyrV2JpMnxVc0tIP0fWw4CqhJTZaOStbaiVgExmyuANpxa1xw+Yv4f/w6yubl1Gw OvYw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:user-agent:references :message-id:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=xMf9sCWcBidB1KrzMHsGwrM00RACWGR46CjJlvkrpJ0=; b=KwlPc2Z+7m53cFGezT9OFKTYUljw/RLTOBzZGSfYyVSEr+Xex95zMSWz4+kV+T8qL5 BpRI9rbDXePkIPtsybgkPrKybQM7VWDIktuHjwYCTGe0Y9wS/G5JvFGap6aUCLRNW6VT O2FNICzMlAbFpVEZRq+ZdYTEbBkwj/7ik7NR/s0o5IXl76nXHwxiKsO5MaaN7hEMlVO+ fLfWC5jVROcGbEEAkQhoydujOl94O+8Xo7PcbdT82eutsr4yBPZQEQurx7CyFtgG9XPR t5Gh1RH9ubzUvGIpwN8QpQvAVDv7fqgxec8yCnGrBVg522jSf1KncbxCIrVNLaLfZvGE LJow== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20161025 header.b=SDTx12Fq; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id k125si3391461pfc.21.2019.02.05.07.40.55; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 07:41:11 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20161025 header.b=SDTx12Fq; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729877AbfBEPkY (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 10:40:24 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-f67.google.com ([209.85.210.67]:33204 "EHLO mail-ot1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727076AbfBEPkY (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 10:40:24 -0500 Received: by mail-ot1-f67.google.com with SMTP id i20so6443681otl.0 for ; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 07:40:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references :user-agent:mime-version; bh=xMf9sCWcBidB1KrzMHsGwrM00RACWGR46CjJlvkrpJ0=; b=SDTx12FqXxcySow8kMzoghI35nP5LBHgbn/HbijJO+w0aAEQ4Kn+UFISdfTKCxJqDT GXivhDDSJayexsN8X8nnZKRBXrNdeFdP1WBN7FuxrJ7CQ8ZTOJbvMdxFhRU1hs2pUaSA Dpm98Am395kIY+NCiSrY8ELzTNPWWRhIQzZ0TtTMrkEKpCwVCKE3GlDu8Otcte0O7/de N2Lcnm/YWrCdNvc/72tBxY+ui2EuXhpRDpBdu3+KnNop7o7Yti96c7FfvfMYPv4lpIyH ML2I1pRO9XlT5QBQykB6c8Eid6/VXdweRza6/yPMboAgo0xVbyer5CzfYHl0RcVoRsk5 2FGg== 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:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version; bh=xMf9sCWcBidB1KrzMHsGwrM00RACWGR46CjJlvkrpJ0=; b=IR2VBi1pGdcAiX4OX31EYs+TUe7fcHjg9kqDRq8aPsQu0MG9L4+oAAAOgSxiHvJrAp 1wXe2Y/en3tEayvsLEV1qp34o4D7vATFXHJ/xety52i8tSk2u+JHS4S1aR6EWAR/mkai XqxVSTodK6Q0KNbjUYUdgfwIZXLI+AtsL5UbedE8fjMkPQBMUQHtqmYPSU1Jl/dR6D+4 +8S2C/tG1L4FscdomspzsvILCAFcrjODnhZEU8sl+nUB7/eLnJlmUEfqSfS6m2DWzWmO 0NOe+imbxGhggGVp6/N3RBo3vNFxmOqUE9+JdQriEZOxouMFbCPqzGbRGIw9Cp5xLKXf TYBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaDnrrvc+ailvKQiIjhLWUTUD1GybII/b1oUp2TqcUJ0xCrJsyz c+b16geIVw+T4UOsSsjjnDGU6g== X-Received: by 2002:aca:38c2:: with SMTP id f185mr3047574oia.26.1549381222379; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 07:40:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from eggly.attlocal.net (172-10-233-147.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [172.10.233.147]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a15sm8383456otd.66.2019.02.05.07.40.20 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Feb 2019 07:40:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 07:40:11 -0800 (PST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@eggly.anvils To: Artem Savkov cc: Hugh Dickins , Baoquan He , Qian Cai , Andrea Arcangeli , Michal Hocko , Vlastimil Babka , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: mm: race in put_and_wait_on_page_locked() In-Reply-To: <20190205121002.GA32424@shodan.usersys.redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20190204091300.GB13536@shodan.usersys.redhat.com> <20190205121002.GA32424@shodan.usersys.redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, Artem Savkov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 12:42:50PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Artem Savkov wrote: > > > > > Hi Hugh, > > > > > > Your recent patch 9a1ea439b16b "mm: put_and_wait_on_page_locked() while > > > page is migrated" seems to have introduced a race into page migration > > > process. I have a host that eagerly reproduces the following BUG under > > > stress: > > > > > > [ 302.847402] page:f000000000021700 count:0 mapcount:0 mapping:c0000000b2710bb0 index:0x19 > > > [ 302.848096] xfs_address_space_operations [xfs] > > > [ 302.848100] name:"libc-2.28.so" > > > [ 302.848244] flags: 0x3ffff800000006(referenced|uptodate) > > > [ 302.848521] raw: 003ffff800000006 5deadbeef0000100 5deadbeef0000200 0000000000000000 > > > [ 302.848724] raw: 0000000000000019 0000000000000000 00000001ffffffff c0000000bc0b1000 > > > [ 302.848919] page dumped because: VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_ref_count(page) == 0) > > > [ 302.849076] page->mem_cgroup:c0000000bc0b1000 > > > [ 302.849269] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > [ 302.849397] kernel BUG at include/linux/mm.h:546! > > > [ 302.849586] Oops: Exception in kernel mode, sig: 5 [#1] > > > [ 302.849711] LE SMP NR_CPUS=2048 NUMA pSeries > > > [ 302.849839] Modules linked in: pseries_rng sunrpc xts vmx_crypto virtio_balloon xfs libcrc32c virtio_net net_failover virtio_console failover virtio_blk > > > [ 302.850400] CPU: 3 PID: 8759 Comm: cc1 Not tainted 5.0.0-rc4+ #36 > > > [ 302.850571] NIP: c00000000039c8b8 LR: c00000000039c8b4 CTR: c00000000080a0e0 > > > [ 302.850758] REGS: c0000000b0d7f7e0 TRAP: 0700 Not tainted (5.0.0-rc4+) > > > [ 302.850952] MSR: 8000000000029033 CR: 48024422 XER: 00000000 > > > [ 302.851150] CFAR: c0000000003ff584 IRQMASK: 0 > > > [ 302.851150] GPR00: c00000000039c8b4 c0000000b0d7fa70 c000000001bcca00 0000000000000021 > > > [ 302.851150] GPR04: c0000000b044c628 0000000000000007 55555555555555a0 c000000001fc3760 > > > [ 302.851150] GPR08: 0000000000000007 0000000000000000 c0000000b0d7c000 c0000000b0d7f5ff > > > [ 302.851150] GPR12: 0000000000004400 c00000003fffae80 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 > > > [ 302.851150] GPR16: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 > > > [ 302.851150] GPR20: c0000000689f5aa8 c00000002a13ee48 0000000000000000 c000000001da29b0 > > > [ 302.851150] GPR24: c000000001bf7d80 c0000000689f5a00 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 > > > [ 302.851150] GPR28: c000000001bf9e80 c0000000b0d7fab8 0000000000000001 f000000000021700 > > > [ 302.852914] NIP [c00000000039c8b8] put_and_wait_on_page_locked+0x398/0x3d0 > > > [ 302.853080] LR [c00000000039c8b4] put_and_wait_on_page_locked+0x394/0x3d0 > > > [ 302.853235] Call Trace: > > > [ 302.853305] [c0000000b0d7fa70] [c00000000039c8b4] put_and_wait_on_page_locked+0x394/0x3d0 (unreliable) > > > [ 302.853540] [c0000000b0d7fb10] [c00000000047b838] __migration_entry_wait+0x178/0x250 > > > [ 302.853738] [c0000000b0d7fb50] [c00000000040c928] do_swap_page+0xd78/0xf60 > > > [ 302.853997] [c0000000b0d7fbd0] [c000000000411078] __handle_mm_fault+0xbf8/0xe80 > > > [ 302.854187] [c0000000b0d7fcb0] [c000000000411548] handle_mm_fault+0x248/0x450 > > > [ 302.854379] [c0000000b0d7fd00] [c000000000078ca4] __do_page_fault+0x2d4/0xdf0 > > > [ 302.854877] [c0000000b0d7fde0] [c0000000000797f8] do_page_fault+0x38/0xf0 > > > [ 302.855057] [c0000000b0d7fe20] [c00000000000a7c4] handle_page_fault+0x18/0x38 > > > [ 302.855300] Instruction dump: > > > [ 302.855432] 4bfffcf0 60000000 3948ffff 4bfffd20 60000000 60000000 3c82ff36 7fe3fb78 > > > [ 302.855689] fb210068 38843b78 48062f09 60000000 <0fe00000> 60000000 3b400001 3b600001 > > > [ 302.855950] ---[ end trace a52140e0f9751ae0 ]--- > > > > > > What seems to be happening is migrate_page_move_mapping() calling > > > page_ref_freeze() on another cpu somewhere between __migration_entry_wait() > > > taking a reference and wait_on_page_bit_common() calling page_put(). > > > > Thank you for reporting, Artem. > > > > And see the mm thread https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=154821775401218&w=2 > > Ah, thank you. Should have searched through linux-mm, not just lkml. > > > That was on arm64, you are on power I think: both point towards xfs > > (Cai could not reproduce it on ext4), but that should not be taken too > > seriously - it could just be easier to reproduce on one than the other. > > > > Your description in your last paragraph is what I imagined happening too. > > And nothing wrong with that, except that the page_ref_freeze() should > > have failed, but succeeded. We believe that something has done an > > improper put_page(), on a libc-2.28.so page that's normally always > > in use, and the put_and_wait_on_page_locked() commit has exposed that > > by making its migration possible when it was almost impossible before > > (Cai has reproduced it without the put_and_wait_on_page_locked commit). > > This is what I saw as well, only reproduces on xfs and page_ref_count == 0 > BUG through generic_file_buffered_read() when your patch is reverted. > Wasn't sure that's the same issue though. > > > I don't think any of us have made progress on this since the 25th. > > I'll wrap up what I'm working on in the next hour or two, and switch > > my attention to this. Even if put_and_wait_on_page_locked() happens to > > be correct, and just makes a pre-existing bug much easier to hit, we > > shall have to revert it from 5.0 if we cannot find the right answer > > in the next week or so. Which would be sad: I'll try to rescue it, > > but don't have great confidence that I'll be successful. > > > > I'll be looking through the source, thinking around it, and trying > > to find a surplus put_page(). I don't have any experiments in mind > > to try at this stage. > > > > Something I shall not be doing, is verifying the correctness of the > > low-level get_page_unless_zero() versus page_ref_freeze() protocol > > on arm64 and power - nobody has reported on x86, and I do wonder if > > there's a barrier missing somewhere, that could manifest in this way - > > but I'm unlikely to be the one to find that (and also think that any > > weakness there should have shown up long before now). > > I tried reproducing it with 5.0-rc5 and failed. There is one patch that > seems to be fixing an xfs page reference issue which to me sounds a lot > like what you describe. The patch is 8e47a457321c "iomap: get/put the > page in iomap_page_create/release()". That would explain why > page_ref_freeze() and all the expected_page_refs() checks succeed when > they shouldn't. Yes! I'm sure you've got it, that fits exactly, thank you so much Artem. iomap_migrate_page() was very much on my search path yesterday, but I was looking at latest source, had missed checking it for recent fixes. > > Apart from no longer reproducing the bug I also see a drastic reduce in > pgmigrate_fails in /proc/vmstat (from tens of thousands and > being >pgmigrate_success, to just tens) so I assume it is possible for it > to be just masking the problem by performing less retries. What do you think? I'm a little surprised that it managed to get as far as so many fails without crashing, when it had the refcounting wrong like that: but I'm sure you've found the root fix, not something masking the bug. > > Cai, can you please check if you can reproduce this issue in your > environment with 5.0-rc5? Yes, please do - practical confirmation more convincing than my certainty. (Linus, I'll reply a little to yours later.) Hugh