On 09/07/22 10:11, Miaohe Lin wrote: > On 2022/9/7 7:08, Mike Kravetz wrote: > > On 09/06/22 11:05, Mike Kravetz wrote: > >> On 09/06/22 09:48, Mike Kravetz wrote: > >>> On 09/06/22 15:57, Sven Schnelle wrote: > >>>> Hi Mike, > >>>> > >>>> Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>>> > >>>>> When page fault code needs to allocate and instantiate a new hugetlb > >>>>> page (huegtlb_no_page), it checks early to determine if the fault is > >>>>> beyond i_size. When discovered early, it is easy to abort the fault and > >>>>> return an error. However, it becomes much more difficult to handle when > >>>>> discovered later after allocating the page and consuming reservations > >>>>> and adding to the page cache. Backing out changes in such instances > >>>>> becomes difficult and error prone. > >>>>> > >>>>> Instead of trying to catch and backout all such races, use the hugetlb > >>>>> fault mutex to handle truncate racing with page faults. The most > >>>>> significant change is modification of the routine remove_inode_hugepages > >>>>> such that it will take the fault mutex for EVERY index in the truncated > >>>>> range (or hole in the case of hole punch). Since remove_inode_hugepages > >>>>> is called in the truncate path after updating i_size, we can experience > >>>>> races as follows. > >>>>> - truncate code updates i_size and takes fault mutex before a racing > >>>>> fault. After fault code takes mutex, it will notice fault beyond > >>>>> i_size and abort early. > >>>>> - fault code obtains mutex, and truncate updates i_size after early > >>>>> checks in fault code. fault code will add page beyond i_size. > >>>>> When truncate code takes mutex for page/index, it will remove the > >>>>> page. > >>>>> - truncate updates i_size, but fault code obtains mutex first. If > >>>>> fault code sees updated i_size it will abort early. If fault code > >>>>> does not see updated i_size, it will add page beyond i_size and > >>>>> truncate code will remove page when it obtains fault mutex. > >>>>> > >>>>> Note, for performance reasons remove_inode_hugepages will still use > >>>>> filemap_get_folios for bulk folio lookups. For indicies not returned in > >>>>> the bulk lookup, it will need to lookup individual folios to check for > >>>>> races with page fault. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 184 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > >>>>> mm/hugetlb.c | 41 +++++----- > >>>>> 2 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> With linux next starting from next-20220831 i see hangs with this > >>>> patch applied while running the glibc test suite. The patch doesn't > >>>> revert cleanly on top, so i checked out one commit before that one and > >>>> with that revision everything works. > >>>> > >>>> It looks like the malloc test suite in glibc triggers this. I cannot > >>>> identify a single test causing it, but instead the combination of > >>>> multiple tests. Running the test suite on a single CPU works. Given the > >>>> subject of the patch that's likely not a surprise. > >>>> > >>>> This is on s390, and the warning i get from RCU is: > >>>> > >>>> [ 1951.906997] rcu: INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU > >>>> [ 1951.907009] rcu: 60-....: (6000 ticks this GP) idle=968c/1/0x4000000000000000 softirq=43971/43972 fqs=2765 > >>>> [ 1951.907018] (t=6000 jiffies g=116125 q=1008072 ncpus=64) > >>>> [ 1951.907024] CPU: 60 PID: 1236661 Comm: ld64.so.1 Not tainted 6.0.0-rc3-next-20220901 #340 > >>>> [ 1951.907027] Hardware name: IBM 3906 M04 704 (z/VM 7.1.0) > >>>> [ 1951.907029] Krnl PSW : 0704e00180000000 00000000003d9042 (hugetlb_fault_mutex_hash+0x2a/0xd8) > >>>> [ 1951.907044] R:0 T:1 IO:1 EX:1 Key:0 M:1 W:0 P:0 AS:3 CC:2 PM:0 RI:0 EA:3 > >>>> [ 1951.907095] Call Trace: > >>>> [ 1951.907098] [<00000000003d9042>] hugetlb_fault_mutex_hash+0x2a/0xd8 > >>>> [ 1951.907101] ([<00000000005845a6>] fault_lock_inode_indicies+0x8e/0x128) > >>>> [ 1951.907107] [<0000000000584876>] remove_inode_hugepages+0x236/0x280 > >>>> [ 1951.907109] [<0000000000584a7c>] hugetlbfs_evict_inode+0x3c/0x60 > >>>> [ 1951.907111] [<000000000044fe96>] evict+0xe6/0x1c0 > >>>> [ 1951.907116] [<000000000044a608>] __dentry_kill+0x108/0x1e0 > >>>> [ 1951.907119] [<000000000044ac64>] dentry_kill+0x6c/0x290 > >>>> [ 1951.907121] [<000000000044afec>] dput+0x164/0x1c0 > >>>> [ 1951.907123] [<000000000042a4d6>] __fput+0xee/0x290 > >>>> [ 1951.907127] [<00000000001794a8>] task_work_run+0x88/0xe0 > >>>> [ 1951.907133] [<00000000001f77a0>] exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1a0/0x1a8 > >>>> [ 1951.907137] [<0000000000d0e42e>] __do_syscall+0x11e/0x200 > >>>> [ 1951.907142] [<0000000000d1d392>] system_call+0x82/0xb0 > >>>> [ 1951.907145] Last Breaking-Event-Address: > >>>> [ 1951.907146] [<0000038001d839c0>] 0x38001d839c0 > >>>> > >>>> One of the hanging test cases is usually malloc/tst-malloc-too-large-malloc-hugetlb2. > >>>> > >>>> Any thoughts? > >>> > >>> Thanks for the report, I will take a look. > >>> > >>> My first thought is that this fix may not be applied, > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/Ywepr7C2X20ZvLdn@monkey/ > >>> However, I see that that is in next-20220831. > >>> > >>> Hopefully, this will recreate on x86. > >> > >> One additional thought ... > >> > >> With this patch, we will take the hugetlb fault mutex for EVERY index in the > >> range being truncated or hole punched. In the case of a very large file, that > >> is no different than code today where we take the mutex when removing pages > >> from the file. What is different is taking the mutex for indices that are > >> part of holes in the file. Consider a very large file with only one page at > >> the very large offset. We would then take the mutex for each index in that > >> very large hole. Depending on the size of the hole, this could appear as a > >> hang. > >> > >> For the above locking scheme to work, we need to take the mutex for indices > >> in holes in case there would happen to be a racing page fault. However, there > >> are only a limited number of fault mutexes (it is a table). So, we only really > >> need to take at a maximum num_fault_mutexes mutexes. We could keep track of > >> these with a bitmap. > >> > >> I am not sure this is the issue you are seeing, but a test named > >> tst-malloc-too-large-malloc-hugetlb2 may be doing this. > >> > >> In any case, I think this issue needs to be addressed before this series can > >> move forward. > > > > Well, even if we address the issue of taking the same mutex multiple times, > > Can we change to take all the hugetlb fault mutex at the same time to ensure every possible > future hugetlb page fault will see a truncated i_size? Then we could just drop all the hugetlb > fault mutex before doing any heavy stuff? It seems hugetlb fault mutex could be dropped when > new i_size is guaranteed to be visible for any future hugetlb page fault users? > But I might miss something... Yes, that is the general direction and would work well for truncation. However, the same routine remove_inode_hugepages is used for hole punch, and I am pretty sure we want to take the fault mutex there as it can race with page faults. > > > this new synchronization scheme requires a folio lookup for EVERY index in > > the truncated or hole punched range. This can easily 'stall' a CPU if there > > If above thought holds, we could do batch folio lookup instead. Hopes my thought will help. ;) > Yes, I have some promising POC code with two batch lookups in case of holes. Hope to send something soon. -- Mike Kravetz
