On Mon 05-07-21 19:05:36, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> In case of simultaneous vmalloc allocations, for example it is 1GB and
> 12 CPUs my system is able to hit "BUG: soft lockup" for !CONFIG_PREEMPT
> kernel.
>
> <snip>
> [ 62.512621] RIP: 0010:__alloc_pages_bulk+0xa9f/0xbb0
> [ 62.512628] Code: ff 8b 44 24 48 44 29 f8 83 f8 01 0f 84 ea fe ff ff e9 07 f6 ff ff 48 8b 44 24 60 48 89 28 e9 00 f9 ff ff fb 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 <e9> e8 fd ff ff 65 48 01 51 10 e9 3e fe ff ff 48 8b 44 24 78 4d 89
> [ 62.512629] RSP: 0018:ffffa7bfc29ffd20 EFLAGS: 00000206
> [ 62.512631] RAX: 0000000000000200 RBX: ffffcd5405421888 RCX: ffff8c36ffdeb928
> [ 62.512632] RDX: 0000000000040000 RSI: ffffa896f06b2ff8 RDI: ffffcd5405421880
> [ 62.512633] RBP: ffffcd5405421880 R08: 000000000000007d R09: ffffffffffffffff
> [ 62.512634] R10: ffffffff9d63c084 R11: 00000000ffffffff R12: ffff8c373ffaeb80
> [ 62.512635] R13: ffff8c36ffdf65f8 R14: ffff8c373ffaeb80 R15: 0000000000040000
> [ 62.512637] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8c36ffdc0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [ 62.512638] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [ 62.512639] CR2: 000055c8e2fe8610 CR3: 0000000c13e10000 CR4: 00000000000006e0
> [ 62.512641] Call Trace:
> [ 62.512646] __vmalloc_node_range+0x11c/0x2d0
> [ 62.512649] ? full_fit_alloc_test+0x140/0x140 [test_vmalloc]
> [ 62.512654] __vmalloc_node+0x4b/0x70
> [ 62.512656] ? fix_size_alloc_test+0x44/0x60 [test_vmalloc]
> [ 62.512659] fix_size_alloc_test+0x44/0x60 [test_vmalloc]
> [ 62.512662] test_func+0xe7/0x1f0 [test_vmalloc]
> [ 62.512666] ? fix_align_alloc_test+0x50/0x50 [test_vmalloc]
> [ 62.512668] kthread+0x11a/0x140
> [ 62.512671] ? set_kthread_struct+0x40/0x40
> [ 62.512672] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
> <snip>
>
> To address this issue invoke a bulk-allocator many times until all pages
> are obtained, i.e. do batched page requests adding cond_resched() meanwhile
> to reschedule. Batched value is hard-coded and is 100 pages per call.
Yes, this makes perfect sense to me. I would just be more explicit that
this is an artificially created problem likely not being a problem at
the moment but why not to prepare for a future.
> Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
> ---
> mm/vmalloc.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index aaad569e8963..5297958ac7c5 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -2785,10 +2785,32 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid,
> * to fails, fallback to a single page allocator that is
> * more permissive.
> */
> - if (!order)
> - nr_allocated = alloc_pages_bulk_array_node(
> - gfp, nid, nr_pages, pages);
> - else
> + if (!order) {
> + while (nr_allocated < nr_pages) {
> + int nr, nr_pages_request;
> +
> + /*
> + * A maximum allowed request is hard-coded and is 100
> + * pages per call. That is done in order to prevent a
> + * long preemption off scenario in the bulk-allocator
> + * so the range is [1:100].
> + */
> + nr_pages_request = min(100, (int)(nr_pages - nr_allocated));
> +
> + nr = alloc_pages_bulk_array_node(gfp, nid,
> + nr_pages_request, pages + nr_allocated);
> +
> + nr_allocated += nr;
> + cond_resched();
> +
> + /*
> + * If zero or pages were obtained partly,
> + * fallback to a single page allocator.
> + */
> + if (nr != nr_pages_request)
> + break;
> + }
> + } else
> /*
> * Compound pages required for remap_vmalloc_page if
> * high-order pages.
> --
> 2.20.1
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
