Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 24 Sep 2022 12:36:12 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Marcelo Cerri <marcelo.cerri@canonical.com>,
        tim.gardner@canonical.com,
        Khalid ElMously <khalid.elmously@canonical.com>,
        philip.cox@canonical.com,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 02/14] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory
Message-ID: <Yy7PjEXfHoR4PYdC@kernel.org>
References: <CAAH4kHa6s3sBRySNu-TZG_6vOaN4KheVy4kvxG5s=wOTDGy2=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <2981e25e-9cda-518a-9750-b8694f2356b5@amd.com>
 <CAAH4kHbcfnVWNQHf6Mrg__bSFT6196Sx4kno6o0Zo7hsgOgnNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <984e07ed-914f-93ca-a141-3fc8677878e0@intel.com>
 <CAAH4kHawguTEuDVyz1ysSbH0X_mT=SvxLi=UhwEzXM0abbWefg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YxncAElGrPEGRYg1@linux.ibm.com>
 <CAAH4kHaP8JUh0Z4rF83=2RZTGMATT5MHot6rAnAwt79PL64mVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YxpCaQARczhZQmq2@linux.ibm.com>
 <f72f7325-adc6-89d5-7cbc-647442308233@amd.com>
 <20220924010302.bwas4zbro37rrxai@box.shutemov.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220924010302.bwas4zbro37rrxai@box.shutemov.name>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 04:03:02AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 09:31:12AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > On 9/8/22 14:28, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 09:23:07AM -0700, Dionna Amalie Glaze wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Looks like the first access to the memory map fails, although I think
> > > > > it's not in INIT_LIST_HEAD() but rather in init_page_count().
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'd start with making sure that page_alloc::memmap_alloc() actually returns
> > > > > accepted memory. If you build kernel with CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=y the memory map
> > > > > will poisoned in this function, so my guess is it'd crash there.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > That's a wonderful hint, thank you! I did not run this test
> > > > CONFIG_DEBUG_VM set, but you think it's possible it could still be
> > > > here?
> > > 
> > > It depends on how you configured your kernel. Say, defconfig does not set
> > > it.
> > > 
> > 
> > I also hit the issue at 256GB. My config is using CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP
> > and fails in memmap_init_range() when attempting to add the first PFN. It
> > looks like the underlying page that is backing the vmemmap has not been
> > accepted (I receive a #VC 0x404 => page not validated).
> > 
> > Kirill, is this a path that you've looked at? It would appear that somewhere
> > in the vmemmap_populate_hugepages() path, some memory acceptance needs to be
> > done for the pages that are used to back vmemmap. I'm not very familiar with
> > this code, so I'm not sure why everything works for a guest with 255GB of
> > memory, but then fails for a guest with 256GB of memory.
> 
> Hm. I don't have machine that large at hands at the moment. And I have not
> looked at the codepath before.
> 
> I will try to look into the issue.

I'd add some printks to verify we actually try to accept the allocated
memory. E.g. something like the patch below:

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/unaccepted_memory.c b/arch/x86/mm/unaccepted_memory.c
index 9ec2304272dc..8f00639facc4 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/unaccepted_memory.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/unaccepted_memory.c
@@ -22,6 +22,9 @@ void accept_memory(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
 	if (!boot_params.unaccepted_memory)
 		return;
 
+	if (system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING)
+		pr_info("%s: start: %pa end: %pa %pS\n", __func__, &start, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_);
+
 	bitmap = __va(boot_params.unaccepted_memory);
 	range_start = start / PMD_SIZE;
 
diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
index a1f7f8b304d5..029dd520102d 100644
--- a/mm/memblock.c
+++ b/mm/memblock.c
@@ -1535,7 +1535,7 @@ void * __init memblock_alloc_exact_nid_raw(
 			phys_addr_t min_addr, phys_addr_t max_addr,
 			int nid)
 {
-	memblock_dbg("%s: %llu bytes align=0x%llx nid=%d from=%pa max_addr=%pa %pS\n",
+	pr_info("%s: %llu bytes align=0x%llx nid=%d from=%pa max_addr=%pa %pS\n",
 		     __func__, (u64)size, (u64)align, nid, &min_addr,
 		     &max_addr, (void *)_RET_IP_);
 
@@ -1567,7 +1567,7 @@ void * __init memblock_alloc_try_nid_raw(
 			phys_addr_t min_addr, phys_addr_t max_addr,
 			int nid)
 {
-	memblock_dbg("%s: %llu bytes align=0x%llx nid=%d from=%pa max_addr=%pa %pS\n",
+	pr_info("%s: %llu bytes align=0x%llx nid=%d from=%pa max_addr=%pa %pS\n",
 		     __func__, (u64)size, (u64)align, nid, &min_addr,
 		     &max_addr, (void *)_RET_IP_);
 
 
> -- 
>   Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.