On Thu 19-12-19 12:30:31, John Hubbard wrote: > On 12/19/19 5:26 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 02:25:12PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > This implements an API naming change (put_user_page*() --> > > > unpin_user_page*()), and also implements tracking of FOLL_PIN pages. It > > > extends that tracking to a few select subsystems. More subsystems will > > > be added in follow up work. > > > > Hi John, > > > > The patchset generates kernel panics in our IB testing. In our tests, we > > allocated single memory block and registered multiple MRs using the single > > block. > > > > The possible bad flow is: > > ib_umem_geti() -> > > pin_user_pages_fast(FOLL_WRITE) -> > > internal_get_user_pages_fast(FOLL_WRITE) -> > > gup_pgd_range() -> > > gup_huge_pd() -> > > gup_hugepte() -> > > try_grab_compound_head() -> > > Hi Leon, > > Thanks very much for the detailed report! So we're overflowing... > > At first look, this seems likely to be hitting a weak point in the > GUP_PIN_COUNTING_BIAS-based design, one that I believed could be deferred > (there's a writeup in Documentation/core-api/pin_user_page.rst, lines > 99-121). Basically it's pretty easy to overflow the page->_refcount > with huge pages if the pages have a *lot* of subpages. > > We can only do about 7 pins on 1GB huge pages that use 4KB subpages. > Do you have any idea how many pins (repeated pins on the same page, which > it sounds like you have) might be involved in your test case, > and the huge page and system page sizes? That would allow calculating > if we're likely overflowing for that reason. > > So, ideas and next steps: > > 1. Assuming that you *are* hitting this, I think I may have to fall back to > implementing the "deferred" part of this design, as part of this series, after > all. That means: > > For the pin/unpin calls at least, stop treating all pages as if they are > a cluster of PAGE_SIZE pages; instead, retrieve a huge page as one page. > That's not how it works now, and the need to hand back a huge array of > subpages is part of the problem. This affects the callers too, so it's not > a super quick change to make. (I was really hoping not to have to do this > yet.) Does that mean that you would need to make all GUP users huge page aware? Otherwise I don't see how what you suggest would work... And I don't think making all GUP users huge page aware is realistic (effort-wise) or even wanted (maintenance overhead in all those places). I believe there might be also a different solution for this: For transparent huge pages, we could find a space in 'struct page' of the second page in the huge page for proper pin counter and just account pins there so we'd have full width of 32-bits for it. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
