On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:09 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:26 PM Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:24 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 08:53:59PM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 8:00 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 7:09 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 06:20:56PM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > > > > I think I found the problem and the explanation is much simpler. While
> > > > > > > > walking the page range, queue_folios_pte_range() encounters an
> > > > > > > > unmovable page and queue_folios_pte_range() returns 1. That causes a
> > > > > > > > break from the loop inside walk_page_range() and no more VMAs get
> > > > > > > > locked. After that the loop calling mbind_range() walks over all VMAs,
> > > > > > > > even the ones which were skipped by queue_folios_pte_range() and that
> > > > > > > > causes this BUG assertion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thinking what's the right way to handle this situation (what's the
> > > > > > > > expected behavior here)...
> > > > > > > > I think the safest way would be to modify walk_page_range() and make
> > > > > > > > it continue calling process_vma_walk_lock() for all VMAs in the range
> > > > > > > > even when __walk_page_range() returns a positive err. Any objection or
> > > > > > > > alternative suggestions?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So we only return 1 here if MPOL_MF_MOVE* & MPOL_MF_STRICT were
> > > > > > > specified. That means we're going to return an error, no matter what,
> > > > > > > and there's no point in calling mbind_range(). Right?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > > > > > > @@ -1334,6 +1334,8 @@ static long do_mbind(unsigned long start, unsigned long len,
> > > > > > > ret = queue_pages_range(mm, start, end, nmask,
> > > > > > > flags | MPOL_MF_INVERT, &pagelist, true);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > + if (ret == 1)
> > > > > > > + ret = -EIO;
> > > > > > > if (ret < 0) {
> > > > > > > err = ret;
> > > > > > > goto up_out;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (I don't really understand this code, so it can't be this simple, can
> > > > > > > it? Why don't we just return -EIO from queue_folios_pte_range() if
> > > > > > > this is the right answer?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, I'm trying to understand the expected behavior of this function
> > > > > > to make sure we are not missing anything. I tried a simple fix that I
> > > > > > suggested in my previous email and it works but I want to understand a
> > > > > > bit more about this function's logic before posting the fix.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, current functionality is that after queue_pages_range() encounters
> > > > > an unmovable page, terminates the loop and returns 1, mbind_range()
> > > > > will still be called for the whole range
> > > > > (https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/mm/mempolicy.c#L1345),
> > > > > all pages in the pagelist will be migrated
> > > > > (https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/mm/mempolicy.c#L1355)
> > > > > and only after that the -EIO code will be returned
> > > > > (https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/mm/mempolicy.c#L1362).
> > > > > So, if we follow Matthew's suggestion we will be altering the current
> > > > > behavior which I assume is not what we want to do.
> > > >
> > > > Right, I'm intentionally changing the behaviour. My thinking is
> > > > that mbind(MPOL_MF_MOVE | MPOL_MF_STRICT) is going to fail. Should
> > > > such a failure actually move the movable pages before reporting that
> > > > it failed? I don't know.
> > > >
> > > > > The simple fix I was thinking about that would not alter this behavior
> > > > > is smth like this:
> > > >
> > > > I don't like it, but can we run it past syzbot to be sure it solves the
> > > > issue and we're not chasing a ghost here?
> > >
> > > Yes, I just finished running the reproducer on both upstream and
> > > linux-next builds listed in
> > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=b591856e0f0139f83023 and the
> > > problem does not happen anymore.
> > > I'm fine with your suggestion too, just wanted to point out it would
> > > introduce change in the behavior. Let me know how you want to proceed.
> >
> > Well done, identifying the mysterious cause of this problem:
> > I'm glad to hear that you've now verified that hypothesis.
> >
> > You're right, it would be a regression to follow Matthew's suggestion.
> >
> > Traditionally, modulo bugs and inconsistencies, the queue_pages_range()
> > phase of do_mbind() has done the best it can, gathering all the pages it
> > can that need migration, even if some were missed; and proceeds to do the
> > mbind_range() phase if there was nothing "seriously" wrong (a gap causing
> > -EFAULT). Then at the end, if MPOL_MF_STRICT was set, and not all the
> > pages could be migrated (or MOVE was not specified and not all pages
> > were well placed), it returns -EIO rather than 0 to inform the caller
> > that not all could be done.
> >
> > There have been numerous tweaks, but I think most importantly
> > 5.3's d883544515aa ("mm: mempolicy: make the behavior consistent when
> > MPOL_MF_MOVE* and MPOL_MF_STRICT were specified") added those "return 1"s
> > which stop the pagewalk early. In my opinion, not an improvement - makes
> > it harder to get mbind() to do the best job it can (or is it justified as
> > what you're asking for if you say STRICT?).
> >
> > But whatever, it would be a further regression for mbind() not to have
> > done the mbind_range(), even though it goes on to return -EIO.
> >
> > I had a bad first reaction to your walk_page_range() patch (was expecting
> > to see vma_start_write()s in mbind_range()), but perhaps your patch is
> > exactly what process_mm_walk_lock() does now demand.
> >
> > [Why is Hugh responding on this? Because I have some long-standing
> > mm/mempolicy.c patches to submit next week, but in reviewing what I
> > could or could not afford to get into at this time, had decided I'd
> > better stay out of queue_pages_range() for now - beyond the trivial
> > preferring an MPOL_MF_WRLOCK flag to your bool lock_vma.]
>
> Thanks for the feedback, Hugh!
> Yeah, this positive err handling is kinda weird. If this behavior (do
> as much as possible even if we fail eventually) is specific to mbind()
> then we could keep walk_page_range() as is and lock the VMAs inside
> the loop that calls mbind_range() with a condition that ret is
> positive. That would be the simplest solution IMHO. But if we expect
> walk_page_range() to always apply requested page_walk_lock policy to
> all VMAs even if some mm_walk_ops returns a positive error somewhere
> in the middle of the walk then my fix would work for that. So, to me
> the important question is how we want walk_page_range() to behave in
> these conditions. I think we should answer that first and document
> that. Then the fix will be easy.
I looked at all the cases where we perform page walk while locking
VMAs and mbind() seems to be the only one that would require
walk_page_range() to lock all VMAs even for a failed walk. So, I
suggest this fix instead and I can also document that if
walk_page_range() fails it might not apply page_walk_lock policy to
the VMAs.
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 42b5567e3773..cbc584e9b6ca 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -1342,6 +1342,9 @@ static long do_mbind(unsigned long start,
unsigned long len,
vma_iter_init(&vmi, mm, start);
prev = vma_prev(&vmi);
for_each_vma_range(vmi, vma, end) {
+ /* If queue_pages_range failed then not all VMAs
might be locked */
+ if (ret)
+ vma_start_write(vma);
err = mbind_range(&vmi, vma, &prev, start, end, new);
if (err)
break;
If this looks good I'll post the patch. Matthew, Hugh, anyone else?
>
>
> >
> > Hugh
