On Fri, 5 Feb 2021, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > Hugh, did you get a chance to test this? 'fraid not: since I was unable to reproduce the problem, I did not try running with your suggested fix at all: hoped someone who could reproduce the problem might. Hugh > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 08:33:44PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:56:36AM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 17:55:22 -0800 syzbot <syzbot+e5a33e700b1dd0da20a2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > syzbot found the following issue on: > > > > > > > > > > HEAD commit: 03430750 Add linux-next specific files for 20201116 > > > > > git tree: linux-next > > > > > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=13f80e5e500000 > > > > > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=a1c4c3f27041fdb8 > > > > > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=e5a33e700b1dd0da20a2 > > > > > compiler: gcc (GCC) 10.1.0-syz 20200507 > > > > > syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=12f7bc5a500000 > > > > > C reproducer: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=10934cf2500000 > > > > > > > > Alex, your series "per memcg lru lock" changed the vmscan code rather a > > > > lot. Could you please take a look at that reproducer? > > > > > > Andrew, I promised I'd take a look at this syzreport too (though I think > > > we're agreed by now that it has nothing to do with per-memcg lru_lock). > > > > > > I did try, but (unlike Alex) did not manage to get the reproducer to > > > reproduce it. No doubt I did not try hard enough: I did rather lose > > > interest after seeing that it appears to involve someone with > > > CAP_SYS_ADMIN doing an absurdly large ioctl(BLKFRASET) on /dev/nullb0 > > > ("Null test block driver" enabled via CONFIG_BLK_DEV_NULL_BLK=y: that I > > > did enable) and faulting from it: presumably triggering an absurd amount > > > of readahead. > > > > > > Cc'ing Matthew since he has a particular interest in readahead, and > > > might be inspired to make some small safe change that would fix this, > > > and benefit realistic cases too; but on the whole it didn't look worth > > > worrying about - or at least not by me. > > > > Oh, interesting. Thanks for looping me in, I hadn't looked at this one > > at all. Building on the debugging you did, this is the interesting > > part of the backtrace to me: > > > > > > > try_to_free_pages+0x29f/0x720 mm/vmscan.c:3264 > > > > > __perform_reclaim mm/page_alloc.c:4360 [inline] > > > > > __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim mm/page_alloc.c:4381 [inline] > > > > > __alloc_pages_slowpath.constprop.0+0x917/0x2510 mm/page_alloc.c:4785 > > > > > __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x5f0/0x730 mm/page_alloc.c:4995 > > > > > alloc_pages_current+0x191/0x2a0 mm/mempolicy.c:2271 > > > > > alloc_pages include/linux/gfp.h:547 [inline] > > > > > __page_cache_alloc mm/filemap.c:977 [inline] > > > > > __page_cache_alloc+0x2ce/0x360 mm/filemap.c:962 > > > > > page_cache_ra_unbounded+0x3a1/0x920 mm/readahead.c:216 > > > > > do_page_cache_ra+0xf9/0x140 mm/readahead.c:267 > > > > > do_sync_mmap_readahead mm/filemap.c:2721 [inline] > > > > > filemap_fault+0x19d0/0x2940 mm/filemap.c:2809 > > > > So ra_pages has been set to something ridiculously large, and as > > a result, we call do_page_cache_ra() asking to read more memory than > > is available in the machine. Funny thing, we actually have a function > > to prevent this kind of situation, and it's force_page_cache_ra(). > > > > So this might fix the problem. I only tested that it compiles. I'll > > be happy to write up a proper changelog and sign-off for it if it works ... > > it'd be good to get it some soak testing on a variety of different > > workloads; changing this stuff is enormously subtle. > > > > As a testament to that, I think Fengguang got it wrong in commit > > 2cbea1d3ab11 -- async_size should have been 3 * ra_pages / 4, not ra_pages > > / 4 (because we read-behind by half the range, so we're looking for a > > page fault to happen a quarter of the way behind this fault ...) > > > > This is partially Roman's fault, see commit 600e19afc5f8. > > > > diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c > > index d5e7c2029d16..43fe0f0ae3bb 100644 > > --- a/mm/filemap.c > > +++ b/mm/filemap.c > > @@ -2632,7 +2632,7 @@ static struct file *do_sync_mmap_readahead(struct vm_fault *vmf) > > ra->size = ra->ra_pages; > > ra->async_size = ra->ra_pages / 4; > > ractl._index = ra->start; > > - do_page_cache_ra(&ractl, ra->size, ra->async_size); > > + force_page_cache_ra(&ractl, ra, ra->size); > > return fpin; > > } > > > > diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h > > index c43ccdddb0f6..5664b4b91340 100644 > > --- a/mm/internal.h > > +++ b/mm/internal.h > > @@ -49,8 +49,6 @@ void unmap_page_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb, > > unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, > > struct zap_details *details); > > > > -void do_page_cache_ra(struct readahead_control *, unsigned long nr_to_read, > > - unsigned long lookahead_size); > > void force_page_cache_ra(struct readahead_control *, struct file_ra_state *, > > unsigned long nr); > > static inline void force_page_cache_readahead(struct address_space *mapping, > > diff --git a/mm/readahead.c b/mm/readahead.c > > index c5b0457415be..f344c894c26a 100644 > > --- a/mm/readahead.c > > +++ b/mm/readahead.c > > @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(page_cache_ra_unbounded); > > * behaviour which would occur if page allocations are causing VM writeback. > > * We really don't want to intermingle reads and writes like that. > > */ > > -void do_page_cache_ra(struct readahead_control *ractl, > > +static void do_page_cache_ra(struct readahead_control *ractl, > > unsigned long nr_to_read, unsigned long lookahead_size) > > { > > struct inode *inode = ractl->mapping->host;
