On 09.09.19 09:46, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 09.09.19 07:48, Toshiki Fukasawa wrote:
>> On 2019/09/06 19:35, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 06.09.19 12:02, Toshiki Fukasawa wrote:
>>>> Thank you for your feedback.
>>>>
>>>> On 2019/09/06 17:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 06.09.19 10:09, Toshiki Fukasawa wrote:
>>>>>> A kernel panic is observed during reading
>>>>>> /proc/kpage{cgroup,count,flags} for first few pfns allocated by
>>>>>> pmem namespace:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: fffffffffffffffe
>>>>>> [ 114.495280] #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode
>>>>>> [ 114.495738] #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page
>>>>>> [ 114.496203] PGD 17120e067 P4D 17120e067 PUD 171210067 PMD 0
>>>>>> [ 114.496713] Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
>>>>>> [ 114.497037] CPU: 9 PID: 1202 Comm: page-types Not tainted 5.3.0-rc1
>>>>>> [ 114.497621] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.11.0-0-g63451fca13-prebuilt.qemu-project.org 04/01/2014
>>>>>> [ 114.498706] RIP: 0010:stable_page_flags+0x27/0x3f0
>>>>>> [ 114.499142] Code: 82 66 90 66 66 66 66 90 48 85 ff 0f 84 d1 03 00 00 41 54 55 48 89 fd 53 48 8b 57 08 48 8b 1f 48 8d 42 ff 83 e2 01 48 0f 44 c7 <48> 8b 00 f6 c4 02 0f 84 57 03 00 00 45 31 e4 48 8b 55 08 48 89 ef
>>>>>> [ 114.500788] RSP: 0018:ffffa5e601a0fe60 EFLAGS: 00010202
>>>>>> [ 114.501373] RAX: fffffffffffffffe RBX: ffffffffffffffff RCX: 0000000000000000
>>>>>> [ 114.502009] RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 00007ffca13a7310 RDI: ffffd07489000000
>>>>>> [ 114.502637] RBP: ffffd07489000000 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000
>>>>>> [ 114.503270] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000240000
>>>>>> [ 114.503896] R13: 0000000000080000 R14: 00007ffca13a7310 R15: ffffa5e601a0ff08
>>>>>> [ 114.504530] FS: 00007f0266c7f540(0000) GS:ffff962dbbac0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>>>>>> [ 114.505245] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>>>>>> [ 114.505754] CR2: fffffffffffffffe CR3: 000000023a204000 CR4: 00000000000006e0
>>>>>> [ 114.506401] Call Trace:
>>>>>> [ 114.506660] kpageflags_read+0xb1/0x130
>>>>>> [ 114.507051] proc_reg_read+0x39/0x60
>>>>>> [ 114.507387] vfs_read+0x8a/0x140
>>>>>> [ 114.507686] ksys_pread64+0x61/0xa0
>>>>>> [ 114.508021] do_syscall_64+0x5f/0x1a0
>>>>>> [ 114.508372] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
>>>>>> [ 114.508844] RIP: 0033:0x7f0266ba426b
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first few pages of ZONE_DEVICE expressed as the range
>>>>>> (altmap->base_pfn) to (altmap->base_pfn + altmap->reserve) are
>>>>>> skipped by struct page initialization. Some pfn walkers like
>>>>>> /proc/kpage{cgroup, count, flags} can't handle these uninitialized
>>>>>> struct pages, which causes the error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In previous discussion, Dan seemed to have concern that the struct
>>>>>> page area of some pages indicated by vmem_altmap->reserve may not
>>>>>> be allocated. (See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAPcyv4i5FjTOnPbXNcTzvt+e6RQYow0JRQwSFuxaa62LSuvzHQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/)
>>>>>> However, arch_add_memory() called by devm_memremap_pages() allocates
>>>>>> struct page area for pages containing addresses in the range
>>>>>> (res.start) to (res.start + resource_size(res)), which include the
>>>>>> pages indicated by vmem_altmap->reserve. If I read correctly, it is
>>>>>> allocated as requested at least on x86_64. Also, memmap_init_zone()
>>>>>> initializes struct pages in the same range.
>>>>>> So I think the struct pages should be initialized.>
>>>>>
>>>>> For !ZONE_DEVICE memory, the memmap is valid with SECTION_IS_ONLINE -
>>>>> for the whole section. For ZONE_DEVICE memory we have no such
>>>>> indication. In any section that is !SECTION_IS_ONLINE and
>>>>> SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT, we could have any subsections initialized. >
>>>>> The only indication I am aware of is pfn_zone_device_reserved() - which
>>>>> seems to check exactly what you are trying to skip here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't you somehow use pfn_zone_device_reserved() ? Or if you considered
>>>>> that already, why did you decide against it?
>>>>
>>>> No, in current approach this function is no longer needed.
>>>> The reason why we change the approach is that all pfn walkers
>>>> have to be aware of the uninitialized struct pages.
>>>
>>> We should use the same strategy for all pfn walkers then (effectively
>>> get rid of pfn_zone_device_reserved() if that's what we want).
>>
>> True, but this patch replaces "/proc/kpageflags: do not use uninitialized
>> struct pages". If we initialize the uninitialized struct pages, no pfn walker
>> will need to be aware of them.
>
> So the function should go.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As for SECTION_IS_ONLINE, I'm not sure now.
>>>> I will look into it next week.
>>>
>>> SECTION_IS_ONLINE does currently not apply to ZONE_DEVICE and due to
>>> sub-section support for ZONE_DEVICE, it cannot easily be reused.
>>>
>> It seems that SECTION_IS_ONLINE and SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT can be used to
>> distinguish uninitialized struct pages if we can apply them to ZONE_DEVICE,
>> but that is no longer necessary with this approach.
>
> Let's take a step back here to understand the issues I am aware of. I
> think we should solve this for good now:
>
> A PFN walker takes a look at a random PFN at a random point in time. It
> finds a PFN with SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT && !SECTION_IS_ONLINE. The
> options are:
>
> 1. It is buddy memory (add_memory()) that has not been online yet. The
> memmap contains garbage. Don't access.
>
> 2. It is ZONE_DEVICE memory with a valid memmap. Access it.
>
> 3. It is ZONE_DEVICE memory with an invalid memmap, because the section
> is only partially present: E.g., device starts at offset 64MB within a
> section or the device ends at offset 64MB within a section. Don't access it.
>
> 4. It is ZONE_DEVICE memory with an invalid memmap, because the memmap
> was not initialized yet. memmap_init_zone_device() did not yet succeed
> after dropping the mem_hotplug lock in mm/memremap.c. Don't access it.
>
> 5. It is reserved ZONE_DEVICE memory ("pages mapped, but reserved for
> driver") with an invalid memmap. Don't access it.
>
> I can see that your patch tries to make #5 vanish by initializing the
> memmap, fair enough. #3 and #4 can't be detected. The PFN walker could
> still stumble over uninitialized memmaps.
>
FWIW, I thinkg having something like pfn_zone_device(), similarly
implemented like pfn_zone_device_reserved() could be one solution to
most issues.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
