On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 5:34 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 01:13:54PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote: > > On 12/19/19 1:07 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:30:31PM -0800, 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. > > > > > > Considering that establishing these pins is entirely under user > > > control, we can't have a limit here. > > > > There's already a limit, it's just a much larger one. :) What does "no limit" > > really mean, numerically, to you in this case? > > I guess I mean 'hidden limit' - hitting the limit and failing would > be managable. > > I think 7 is probably too low though, but we are not using 1GB huge > pages, only 2M.. What about RDMA to 1GB-hugetlbfs and 1GB-device-dax mappings?
