Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
Message-ID: <381e4ccd-47ee-955b-f7af-fe192bea0cd4@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2023 09:11:45 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/102.0 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [mm?] BUG: Bad page map (7)
From:   Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
CC:     syzbot <syzbot+55cc72f8cc3a549119df@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
        Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>
References: <000000000000d099fa0604f03351@google.com>
 <0465d13d-83b6-163d-438d-065d03e9ba76@intel.com>
 <ZP8VcUIXTjvR3z54@casper.infradead.org>
 <f3379aeb-f394-8c99-5143-f93e82400320@intel.com>
 <ZP9D0q5MSVFobNbZ@casper.infradead.org>
 <fb936bdb-6473-a956-8431-fe95f5940acc@intel.com>
 <ZP9mla26MWqKKUZ7@casper.infradead.org>
 <092a9bb2-727e-5849-fa4f-18535b998efc@intel.com>
 <ZP/wLVg1JCvhaEKm@casper.infradead.org>
 <97e59c09-30c8-038a-a6f9-3d862a0d3ede@intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <97e59c09-30c8-038a-a6f9-3d862a0d3ede@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?utf-8?B?a3B5cGFaeld0R1dINkdYb1J2c1l6TElUVEhCd2xxM3QxRHVGWEtMVmxHa1pR?=
 =?utf-8?B?S1UyRDhKWW9HdWtaLzRwd0ZaeTRxeE9PcHRKWFJIYVF5UVpzTkRJNHBRTHhl?=
 =?utf-8?B?UG5TOG41dHp1ck1haDBLdzdTM2ZvcldULy9EdXh2SmlFMDNlUGlxSjUrQzZm?=
 =?utf-8?B?UU9SanYvcW5rNUFZbk95T2hOaGtSZ3JsYUM3eTAxWTNlY1Foa1FNbHJMNmd0?=
 =?utf-8?B?TnFLVXNrRGFqaHpKMW85OWlnaWJtMTB0c3VUY0xON3FUdHFub2RQcEdiYnFo?=
 =?utf-8?B?dTROWFhicElYaGJkbENTdEQxQkk5cVMycEpCcGhYalhIU04yckRGL01aUmhl?=
 =?utf-8?B?blNGN29rSERPbkgzRk1ObG92d3lmYmVRK3llNE9ad0FRN1I0RlFCeWVrT1lQ?=
 =?utf-8?B?Tnc2NUdTVGlOc1dxTmdpdVFJSWMwWWJtdTRFVmpFNlRaSGJuRUdlRnpVelZC?=
 =?utf-8?B?SS94OThVekJFeVNZU1ZSRTNLZFprZUl2VXFEVXJiUHpsV1J2NFR5K1JpVWFX?=
 =?utf-8?B?TU9mSXdlQ2swQWcrTllqaEVWd0hSQldHUG9GTGZCTlVKZGJuZEF4SnVQdHRj?=
 =?utf-8?B?bWV3RFhZWW52Wjc2d0NydW9SR3NYU2lvZHRJeFlKeDh3YTdyL29TbHc3SndK?=
 =?utf-8?B?b1ZYTURzb3pwOEQ0Tm5vZ1dzdFdMVUJpbHJGNjE1MEJWWXR1U3ducE9rK2pQ?=
 =?utf-8?B?V2diSEVUVm1SZ3RHcGVhS1gyZXUzYlZjc1RBN3VIT0JnejJJZ0crMUUzVkI5?=
 =?utf-8?B?MUQ0RFRLWnhTNGZUZHJzcVd4OFRnbGtiZDBVVFpENGF3UDVraUVKWW8yZ0p4?=
 =?utf-8?B?Wlc0UEJXR0dGb1ZLYTZONmpZNmhuWWZ1NXVBMW5EenJyWWpydm8velBWY3E1?=
 =?utf-8?B?TVRIYTlCWitSN1JFWUNiRnBTY3RBUlMva2pJZEdjRlh3VFphOE41TkFPcFB1?=
 =?utf-8?B?L0NyTlg4YmdNTSttc0lOK3NzR1lzYzZ2YnpnbldnSmtWalVSTVJXMEVqK3hm?=
 =?utf-8?B?cWdmRkpsZEVHQnVISDYxWXkvWHdRYzYyMnU5TlJFY1l2c1U2QmpxUDJSSDg0?=
 =?utf-8?B?OG53YjRiVEFqRUxvNis1NVZzWGkyRUpIeGE2VXNrMHVJcHBHVmpUVzBwNTJ6?=
 =?utf-8?B?ZmhUSC9hRG9kNGVPTU55UXFNaE5PUUQwQkovaXBQNnIzSnp5dFV3OXUvU1ZH?=
 =?utf-8?B?TXZNRTFsbVBTT0IxRlY2TkY0TU45K1JIOWoyYnpsNG9rQWhQUys1QS9kWU1I?=
 =?utf-8?B?bVNiY1FMSXJOSlpQcVNHRlRkZVJZSy9tL29qRzZlLzc1UHhLejRmNzF0RVRy?=
 =?utf-8?B?Rk5GbEtYNTQ1b3ZkVitVTnJWUzQ5aFRLRHFtbW5SNFdTdzdVVndMLzB6R3hp?=
 =?utf-8?B?dkxkdExlTldUelJBSWozR0thTzVKOUN0VHYwMEpZaFE5Z1ZZanB3TEVDdm1C?=
 =?utf-8?B?SUk1U2FaQVJmTFN3VGY2bzUvYVZaRExvTW0vVXZ3K1ZJbXF3KzdoNnBkUm1u?=
 =?utf-8?B?SXhuZlUrQmRSMFlwcFkwVU9zRXJrM2FRcWNFUjJNMEQxVDV5aE1uZHRBSzZx?=
 =?utf-8?B?cVZ0TkoyM1hTR2RnVFdkR2xxMW1EVERqQmZhS1NhWWNDSjQ4dFlTcXFWcWxC?=
 =?utf-8?B?Wk54RE5tQ0svcVBwN3NOREtQUHBVZlQvQ3R4NHpHSk9vdXRJMmV6clFjK2lX?=
 =?utf-8?B?R2w3Q09UcVBVMU15RUxQU01DaFNLVmp5VDRNVzF5bjBxRXlkSGRYaDkxNTRv?=
 =?utf-8?B?M3ZNOE9uVzZqa2ovTGVvTUlsRTNQNFQwalFEWGd6L1YwT2pybS8rdlV5WHo5?=
 =?utf-8?B?WE52UklWU2NqanV0MlJMeEYyU04yT3lvMFVHNC9CczRGWGxVU0kvOXEwOG9v?=
 =?utf-8?B?MnpTaWpqd2IrWEorU2h2aUI2US9IeWkvMDV5OExDN1kzck42eVpHTUJHQ2lm?=
 =?utf-8?B?QUlHb3JYMUk5TmpmM1E4cm5NM3hnMXZTUUY1TUJzSUp5L3lZc3hvMlNEMFBO?=
 =?utf-8?B?Y0xtL3JkZEdiR1NCVHFpRHRIdlN5SGIyS0RNcFp5dEFHa0Q0eGJrRExOSHo3?=
 =?utf-8?B?dHhQTjA0cFk1aXF2d0s5NVp6SUFzVEd5eDVwcmkrYW4zUklob3g4WnhmdjVt?=
 =?utf-8?Q?1wpY6IUqbYfxsk/nIe9VcnUxJ?=
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 00f0b53a-bcf7-494b-c8c1-08dbb8ad69ad
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1PR11MB4820.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2023 01:11:54.8365
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: DZksiiWN3K21tTkwX91DoN2cW8NSMFoyN+mX21QE2mFjNVbNEwx6lCVOlPYZrA/F4XoP3wAbl23r1EDrgeP26Q==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SJ0PR11MB7155
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lipwig.vger.email
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (lipwig.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Mon, 18 Sep 2023 18:14:40 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Matthew,

On 9/14/23 15:33, Yin Fengwei wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
> 
> On 9/12/23 12:59, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 01:22:51PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On 9/11/23 12:12, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 09:55:37AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>>>> On 9/11/23 09:44, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>>>> After fixing your two typos, this assembles to 176 bytes more code than
>>>>>> my version.  Not sure that's great.
>>>>> Maybe I'm a fool, but 176 bytes of text bloat isn't scaring me off too
>>>>> much.  I'd much rather have that than another window into x86 goofiness
>>>>> to maintain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that 176 bytes translate into meaningful performance, or is it just
>>>>> a bunch of register bit twiddling that the CPU will sail through?
>>>> I'm ... not sure how to tell.  It's 1120 bytes vs 944 bytes and crawling
>>>> through that much x86 assembly isn't my idea of a great time.  I can
>>>> send you objdump -dr for all three options if you like?  Maybe there's
>>>> a quick way to compare them that I've never known about.
>>>
>>> Working patches would be great if you're got 'em handy, plus your
>>> .config and generally what compiler you're on.
>>
>> gcc (Debian 13.2.0-2) 13.2.0
>>
>> I don't think there's anything particularly strange about my .config
>>
>> If you compile this patch as-is, you'll get your preferred code.
>> Remove the #define DH and you get mine.
>>
>> I would say that 176 bytes is 3 cachelines of I$, which isn't free,
>> even if all the insns in it can be executed while the CPU is waiting
>> for cache misses.  This ought to be a pretty tight loop anyway; we're
>> just filling in adjacent PTEs.  There may not be many spare cycles
>> for "free" uops to execute.
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> index d6ad98ca1288..c9781b8b14af 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> @@ -955,6 +955,14 @@ static inline int pte_same(pte_t a, pte_t b)
>>  	return a.pte == b.pte;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static inline pte_t pte_next(pte_t pte)
>> +{
>> +	if (__pte_needs_invert(pte_val(pte)))
>> +		return __pte(pte_val(pte) - (1UL << PFN_PTE_SHIFT));
>> +	return __pte(pte_val(pte) + (1UL << PFN_PTE_SHIFT));
>> +}
>> +#define pte_next	pte_next
>> +
>>  static inline int pte_present(pte_t a)
>>  {
>>  	return pte_flags(a) & (_PAGE_PRESENT | _PAGE_PROTNONE);
>> diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>> index 1fba072b3dac..25333cf3c865 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>> @@ -205,6 +205,10 @@ static inline int pmd_young(pmd_t pmd)
>>  #define arch_flush_lazy_mmu_mode()	do {} while (0)
>>  #endif
>>  
>> +#ifndef pte_next
>> +#define pte_next(pte)	((pte) + (1UL << PFN_PTE_SHIFT))
>> +#endif
>> +
>>  #ifndef set_ptes
>>  /**
>>   * set_ptes - Map consecutive pages to a contiguous range of addresses.
>> @@ -223,6 +227,11 @@ static inline int pmd_young(pmd_t pmd)
>>  static inline void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>>  		pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte, unsigned int nr)
>>  {
>> +#define DH
>> +#ifdef DH
>> +	pgprot_t prot = pte_pgprot(pte);
>> +	unsigned long pfn = pte_pfn(pte);
>> +#endif
>>  	page_table_check_ptes_set(mm, ptep, pte, nr);
>>  
>>  	arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
>> @@ -231,7 +240,12 @@ static inline void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>>  		if (--nr == 0)
>>  			break;
>>  		ptep++;
>> -		pte = __pte(pte_val(pte) + (1UL << PFN_PTE_SHIFT));
>> +#ifdef DH
>> +		pfn++;
>> +		pte = pfn_pte(pfn, prot);
>> +#else
>> +		pte = pte_next(pte);
>> +#endif
>>  	}
>>  	arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>  }
> 
> I checked the commit message of 6b28baca9b1f0d4a42b865da7a05b1c81424bd5c:
>     The invert is done by pte/pmd_modify and pfn/pmd/pud_pte for PROTNONE and
>     pte/pmd/pud_pfn undo it.
>     
>     This assume that no code path touches the PFN part of a PTE directly
>     without using these primitives.
> 
> So maybe we should always use these APIs even we make x86 specific set_ptes()?
> 
> I will find a test machine to measure the performance difference of these two
> versions by using xfs + will-it-scale. Will keep you guys updated.
I'd like to move this bug fixing forward. Based on the test result here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/124631ab-eb4c-6584-12d4-f3c91e69c873@intel.com/
There is very small performance delta between your version and Dave's.

What do you think if we propose to merge Dave's version? Or do I need collect
more data? Thanks.


Regards
Yin, Fengwei

> 
> 
> Regards
> Yin, Fengwei