Message-ID: <4a9fba3c-3924-9d5f-7b42-522a183d1f2e@bytedance.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Feb 2023 18:33:11 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.2
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: don't allocate page from memoryless nodes
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Teng Hu <huteng.ht@bytedance.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
References: <20230212110305.93670-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
 <2484666e-e78e-549d-e075-b2c39d460d71@suse.cz> <Y+tQDN/TmdTPFFR6@kernel.org>
From:   Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y+tQDN/TmdTPFFR6@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2023/2/14 17:10, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 09:47:43AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 2/12/23 12:03, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>> In x86, numa_register_memblks() is only interested in
>>> those nodes which have enough memory, so it skips over
>>> all nodes with memory below NODE_MIN_SIZE (treated as
>>> a memoryless node). Later on, we will initialize these
>>> memoryless nodes (allocate pgdat in free_area_init()
>>> and build zonelist etc), and will online these nodes
>>> in init_cpu_to_node() and init_gi_nodes().
>>>
>>> After boot, these memoryless nodes are in N_ONLINE
>>> state but not in N_MEMORY state. But we can still allocate
>>> pages from these memoryless nodes.
>>>
>>> In SLUB, we only process nodes in the N_MEMORY state,
>>> such as allocating their struct kmem_cache_node. So if
>>> we allocate a page from the memoryless node above to
>>> SLUB, the struct kmem_cache_node of the node corresponding
>>> to this page is NULL, which will cause panic.
>>>
>>> For example, if we use qemu to start a two numa node kernel,
>>> one of the nodes has 2M memory (less than NODE_MIN_SIZE),
>>> and the other node has 2G, then we will encounter the
>>> following panic:
>>>
>>> [    0.149844] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000000
>>> [    0.150783] #PF: supervisor write access in kernel mode
>>> [    0.151488] #PF: error_code(0x0002) - not-present page
>>> <...>
>>> [    0.156056] RIP: 0010:_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x22/0x40
>>> <...>
>>> [    0.169781] Call Trace:
>>> [    0.170159]  <TASK>
>>> [    0.170448]  deactivate_slab+0x187/0x3c0
>>> [    0.171031]  ? bootstrap+0x1b/0x10e
>>> [    0.171559]  ? preempt_count_sub+0x9/0xa0
>>> [    0.172145]  ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x12c/0x440
>>> [    0.172735]  ? bootstrap+0x1b/0x10e
>>> [    0.173236]  bootstrap+0x6b/0x10e
>>> [    0.173720]  kmem_cache_init+0x10a/0x188
>>> [    0.174240]  start_kernel+0x415/0x6ac
>>> [    0.174738]  secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xe0/0xeb
>>> [    0.175417]  </TASK>
>>> [    0.175713] Modules linked in:
>>> [    0.176117] CR2: 0000000000000000
>>>
>>> In addition, we can also encountered this panic in the actual
>>> production environment. We set up a 2c2g container with two
>>> numa nodes, and then reserved 128M for kdump, and then we
>>> can encountered the above panic in the kdump kernel.
>>>
>>> To fix it, we can filter memoryless nodes when allocating
>>> pages.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
>>> Reported-by: Teng Hu <huteng.ht@bytedance.com>
>>
>> Well AFAIK the key mechanism to only allocate from "good" nodes is the
>> zonelist, we shouldn't need to start putting extra checks like this. So it
>> seems to me that the code building the zonelists should take the
>> NODE_MIN_SIZE constraint in mind.
> 
> Why just not drop the memory for nodes with size < NODE_MIN_SIZE from
> memblock at the first place?

In this way, it seems that no pages of size < NODE_MIN_SIZE nodes will
be released to buddy, so the pages of these nodes will not be allocated,
and the above-mentioned panic will be avoided.

But these nodes will still build zonelists for itself, which seems
unnecessary?

> Then we won't need runtime checks at all.
>   
>>> ---
>>>   mm/page_alloc.c | 5 +++++
>>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> index 588555754601..b9cce56f4e21 100644
>>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> @@ -4188,6 +4188,11 @@ get_page_from_freelist(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int alloc_flags,
>>>   			(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CPUSET) &&
>>>   			!__cpuset_zone_allowed(zone, gfp_mask))
>>>   				continue;
>>> +
>>> +		/* Don't allocate page from memoryless nodes. */
>>> +		if (!node_state((zone_to_nid(zone)), N_MEMORY))
>>> +			continue;
>>> +
>>>   		/*
>>>   		 * When allocating a page cache page for writing, we
>>>   		 * want to get it from a node that is within its dirty
>>
> 

-- 
Thanks,
Qi