On 08.11.21 10:06, Lang Yu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 09:23:16AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 08.11.21 08:27, Lang Yu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 02:14:50PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 05.11.21 04:52, Lang Yu wrote:
>>>>> When using devm_request_free_mem_region() and
>>>>> devm_memremap_pages() to add ZONE_DEVICE memory, if requested
>>>>> free mem region pfn were huge(e.g., 0x400000000 ,we found
>>>>> on some amd apus, amdkfd svm will request a such free mem region),
>>>>> the node_end_pfn() will be also huge(see move_pfn_range_to_zone()).
>>>>> It creates a huge hole between node_start_pfn() and node_end_pfn().
>>>>>
>>>>> In such a case, following code snippet acctually was
>>>>> just doing busy test_bit() looping on the huge hole.
>>>>>
>>>>> for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < end_pfn; pfn++) {
>>>>> struct page *page = pfn_to_online_page(pfn);
>>>>> if (!page)
>>>>> continue;
>>>>> ...
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> So we got a soft lockup:
>>>>>
>>>>> watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#6 stuck for 26s! [bash:1221]
>>>>> CPU: 6 PID: 1221 Comm: bash Not tainted 5.15.0-custom #1
>>>>> RIP: 0010:pfn_to_online_page+0x5/0xd0
>>>>> Call Trace:
>>>>> ? kmemleak_scan+0x16a/0x440
>>>>> kmemleak_write+0x306/0x3a0
>>>>> ? common_file_perm+0x72/0x170
>>>>> full_proxy_write+0x5c/0x90
>>>>> vfs_write+0xb9/0x260
>>>>> ksys_write+0x67/0xe0
>>>>> __x64_sys_write+0x1a/0x20
>>>>> do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
>>>>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
>>>>>
>>>>> I did some tests with the patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) amdgpu module unloaded
>>>>>
>>>>> before the patch:
>>>>>
>>>>> real 0m0.976s
>>>>> user 0m0.000s
>>>>> sys 0m0.968s
>>>>>
>>>>> after the patch:
>>>>>
>>>>> real 0m0.981s
>>>>> user 0m0.000s
>>>>> sys 0m0.973s
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) amdgpu module loaded
>>>>>
>>>>> before the patch:
>>>>>
>>>>> real 0m35.365s
>>>>> user 0m0.000s
>>>>> sys 0m35.354s
>>>>>
>>>>> after the patch:
>>>>>
>>>>> real 0m1.049s
>>>>> user 0m0.000s
>>>>> sys 0m1.042s
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lang Yu <lang.yu@xxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> mm/kmemleak.c | 9 +++++----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
>>>>> index b57383c17cf6..d07444613a84 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
>>>>> @@ -1403,6 +1403,7 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> unsigned long flags;
>>>>> struct kmemleak_object *object;
>>>>> + struct zone *zone;
>>>>> int i;
>>>>> int new_leaks = 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1443,9 +1444,9 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
>>>>> * Struct page scanning for each node.
>>>>> */
>>>>> get_online_mems();
>>>>> - for_each_online_node(i) {
>>>>> - unsigned long start_pfn = node_start_pfn(i);
>>>>> - unsigned long end_pfn = node_end_pfn(i);
>>>>> + for_each_populated_zone(zone) {
>>>>> + unsigned long start_pfn = zone->zone_start_pfn;
>>>>> + unsigned long end_pfn = zone_end_pfn(zone);
>>>>> unsigned long pfn;
>>>>>
>>>>> for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < end_pfn; pfn++) {
>>>>> @@ -1455,7 +1456,7 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
>>>>> continue;
>>>>>
>>>>> /* only scan pages belonging to this node */
>>>>> - if (page_to_nid(page) != i)
>>>>> + if (page_to_nid(page) != zone_to_nid(zone))
>>>>
>>>> With overlapping zones you might rescan ranges ... instead we should do:
>>>>
>>>> /* only scan pages belonging to this zone */
>>>> if (zone != page_zone(page))
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Or alternatively:
>>>>
>>>> /* only scan pages belonging to this node */
>>>> if (page_to_nid(page) != zone_to_nid(zone))
>>>> continue;
>>>> /* only scan pages belonging to this zone */
>>>> if (page_zonenum(page) != zone_idx(zone))
>>>> continue;
>>>
>>> The original code has covered that, i.e.,
>>> only scan pages belonging to this node.
>>> I didn't change that behavior.
>>
>> Again, you can easily have overlapping zones -- ZONE_NORMAL and
>> ZONE_MOVABLE -- in which case, a PFN is spanned by multiple zones, but
>> only belongs to a single zone.
>>
>> The original code would scan each PFN exactly once, as it was iterating
>> the node PFNs. Your changed code might scan a single PFN multiple times,
>> if it's spanned by multiple zones.
>>
>
> Did you mean a single PFN is shared by multiple zones belonging to the
> same node here? Thanks!
Not shared, spanned. A PFN always belongs to exactly one ZONE+NODE, but
might be "spanned" by multiple nodes or multiple zones, because nodes
and zones can overlap We can get the actual zone of a PFN via
page_zone(page) in my example above. Note that checking for the zone
structure (not the zone number/idx) implicitly checks for the node.
Let's take a look at an example:
...
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory32/valid_zones
Normal
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory33/valid_zones
Normal
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory34/valid_zones
Normal
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory35/valid_zones
Normal
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory36/valid_zones
Normal
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory37/valid_zones
Normal
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory38/valid_zones
Normal
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory39/valid_zones
Normal
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory40/valid_zones
Movable
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory41/valid_zones
Normal
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory42/valid_zones
Movable
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory43/valid_zones
Normal
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory44/valid_zones
Movable
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory45/valid_zones
Normal
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory46/valid_zones
Movable
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory47/valid_zones
Normal
[root@vm-0 ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/memory/memory48/valid_zones
# cat /proc/zoneinfo
Node 0, zone DMA
...
spanned 4095
present 3998
managed 3977
...
start_pfn: 1
Node 0, zone DMA32
...
spanned 1044480
present 782304
managed 765920
...
start_pfn: 4096
Node 0, zone Normal
...
spanned 524288
present 393216
managed 365736
...
start_pfn: 1048576
Node 0, zone Movable
...
spanned 229376
present 131072
managed 131072
start_pfn: 1310720
So Normal spans:
1048576 -> 1572863
And Movable spans:
1310720 -> 1540095
Both zones overlap.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
