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, 6 May 2023 12:01:40 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To:     Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, minchan@kernel.org,
        ngupta@vflare.org, senozhatsky@chromium.org, sjenning@redhat.com,
        ddstreet@ieee.org, vitaly.wool@konsulko.com, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: move LRU update from zs_map_object() to
 zs_malloc()
Message-ID: <20230506030140.GC3281499@google.com>
References: <20230505185054.2417128-1-nphamcs@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230505185054.2417128-1-nphamcs@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On (23/05/05 11:50), Nhat Pham wrote:
> Under memory pressure, we sometimes observe the following crash:
> 
> [ 5694.832838] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 5694.842093] list_del corruption, ffff888014b6a448->next is LIST_POISON1 (dead000000000100)
> [ 5694.858677] WARNING: CPU: 33 PID: 418824 at lib/list_debug.c:47 __list_del_entry_valid+0x42/0x80
> [ 5694.961820] CPU: 33 PID: 418824 Comm: fuse_counters.s Kdump: loaded Tainted: G S                5.19.0-0_fbk3_rc3_hoangnhatpzsdynshrv41_10870_g85a9558a25de #1
> [ 5694.990194] Hardware name: Wiwynn Twin Lakes MP/Twin Lakes Passive MP, BIOS YMM16 05/24/2021
> [ 5695.007072] RIP: 0010:__list_del_entry_valid+0x42/0x80
> [ 5695.017351] Code: 08 48 83 c2 22 48 39 d0 74 24 48 8b 10 48 39 f2 75 2c 48 8b 51 08 b0 01 48 39 f2 75 34 c3 48 c7 c7 55 d7 78 82 e8 4e 45 3b 00 <0f> 0b eb 31 48 c7 c7 27 a8 70 82 e8 3e 45 3b 00 0f 0b eb 21 48 c7
> [ 5695.054919] RSP: 0018:ffffc90027aef4f0 EFLAGS: 00010246
> [ 5695.065366] RAX: 41fe484987275300 RBX: ffff888008988180 RCX: 0000000000000000
> [ 5695.079636] RDX: ffff88886006c280 RSI: ffff888860060480 RDI: ffff888860060480
> [ 5695.093904] RBP: 0000000000000002 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffc90027aef370
> [ 5695.108175] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: ffffffff82fdf1c0 R12: 0000000010000002
> [ 5695.122447] R13: ffff888014b6a448 R14: ffff888014b6a420 R15: 00000000138dc240
> [ 5695.136717] FS:  00007f23a7d3f740(0000) GS:ffff888860040000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [ 5695.152899] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [ 5695.164388] CR2: 0000560ceaab6ac0 CR3: 000000001c06c001 CR4: 00000000007706e0
> [ 5695.178659] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> [ 5695.192927] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> [ 5695.207197] PKRU: 55555554
> [ 5695.212602] Call Trace:
> [ 5695.217486]  <TASK>
> [ 5695.221674]  zs_map_object+0x91/0x270
> [ 5695.229000]  zswap_frontswap_store+0x33d/0x870
> [ 5695.237885]  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x5d/0xa0
> [ 5695.245899]  __frontswap_store+0x51/0xb0
> [ 5695.253742]  swap_writepage+0x3c/0x60
> [ 5695.261063]  shrink_page_list+0x738/0x1230
> [ 5695.269255]  shrink_lruvec+0x5ec/0xcd0
> [ 5695.276749]  ? shrink_slab+0x187/0x5f0
> [ 5695.284240]  ? mem_cgroup_iter+0x6e/0x120
> [ 5695.292255]  shrink_node+0x293/0x7b0
> [ 5695.299402]  do_try_to_free_pages+0xea/0x550
> [ 5695.307940]  try_to_free_pages+0x19a/0x490
> [ 5695.316126]  __folio_alloc+0x19ff/0x3e40
> [ 5695.323971]  ? __filemap_get_folio+0x8a/0x4e0
> [ 5695.332681]  ? walk_component+0x2a8/0xb50
> [ 5695.340697]  ? generic_permission+0xda/0x2a0
> [ 5695.349231]  ? __filemap_get_folio+0x8a/0x4e0
> [ 5695.357940]  ? walk_component+0x2a8/0xb50
> [ 5695.365955]  vma_alloc_folio+0x10e/0x570
> [ 5695.373796]  ? walk_component+0x52/0xb50
> [ 5695.381634]  wp_page_copy+0x38c/0xc10
> [ 5695.388953]  ? filename_lookup+0x378/0xbc0
> [ 5695.397140]  handle_mm_fault+0x87f/0x1800
> [ 5695.405157]  do_user_addr_fault+0x1bd/0x570
> [ 5695.413520]  exc_page_fault+0x5d/0x110
> [ 5695.421017]  asm_exc_page_fault+0x22/0x30
> 
> After some investigation, I have found the following issue: unlike other
> zswap backends, zsmalloc performs the LRU list update at the object
> mapping time, rather than when the slot for the object is allocated.
> This deviation was discussed and agreed upon during the review process
> of the zsmalloc writeback patch series:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y3flcAXNxxrvy3ZH@cmpxchg.org/
> 
> Unfortunately, this introduces a subtle bug that occurs when there is a
> concurrent store and reclaim, which interleave as follows:
> 
> zswap_frontswap_store()            shrink_worker()
>   zs_malloc()                        zs_zpool_shrink()
>     spin_lock(&pool->lock)             zs_reclaim_page()
>     zspage = find_get_zspage()
>     spin_unlock(&pool->lock)
>                                          spin_lock(&pool->lock)
>                                          zspage = list_first_entry(&pool->lru)
>                                          list_del(&zspage->lru)
>                                            zspage->lru.next = LIST_POISON1
>                                            zspage->lru.prev = LIST_POISON2

					Will list_del_init() there do the trick?

>                                          spin_unlock(&pool->lock)
>   zs_map_object()
>     spin_lock(&pool->lock)
>     if (!list_empty(&zspage->lru))
>       list_del(&zspage->lru)

	list_del_init()

>         CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next == LIST_POISON1) /* BOOM */