On 08/03/2024 17:13, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> + DavidH
>
> On 08/03/2024 16:03, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 03:11:35PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> Actually, I have a clue! The third and fourth word have the same value.
>>> That's indicative of an empty list_head. And if this were LRU, that would
>>> be the second and third word. And the PFN is congruent to 2 modulo 4.
>>> So this is the second tail page, and that's an empty deferred_list.
>>> So how do we init a list_head after a folio gets freed?
>>
>> We should probably add this patch anyway, because why wouldn't we want
>> to check this. Maybe it'll catch your offender?
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index 025ad1a7df7b..fc9c7ca24c4c 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -1007,9 +1007,12 @@ static int free_tail_page_prepare(struct page *head_page, struct page *page)
>> break;
>> case 2:
>> /*
>> - * the second tail page: ->mapping is
>> - * deferred_list.next -- ignore value.
>> + * the second tail page: ->mapping is deferred_list.next
>> */
>> + if (unlikely(!list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list))) {
>> + bad_page(page, "still on deferred list");
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> break;
>> default:
>> if (page->mapping != TAIL_MAPPING) {
>>
>> (thinking about it, this may not be right for all tail pages; will Slab
>> stumble over this? It doesn't seem to stumble on _entire_mapcount, but
>> then we always initialise _entire_mapcount for all compound pages
>> and we don't initialise _deferred_list for slab ... gah)
>
> Yeah I'm getting a huge number of hits for this check. Most either have kfree() or free_slab() or page_to_skb() (networking code?) in the stack. Ideally need to filter on anon pages only, but presumably we have already ditched that info? Actually looks like the head page hasn't been nuked yet so should be able to test the low bit of mapping... let me have a play.
I think the world is trying to tell me "its Friday night. Stop". I can no longer
reproduce the non-NULL mapping oops that I was able to hit reliably this morning.
I do have this one though:
[ 197.332914] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual
address 0000000000000000
[ 197.334250] Mem abort info:
[ 197.334476] ESR = 0x0000000096000044
[ 197.334759] EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits
[ 197.335161] SET = 0, FnV = 0
[ 197.335393] EA = 0, S1PTW = 0
[ 197.335622] FSC = 0x04: level 0 translation fault
[ 197.335985] Data abort info:
[ 197.336201] ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000044, ISS2 = 0x00000000
[ 197.336606] CM = 0, WnR = 1, TnD = 0, TagAccess = 0
[ 197.336998] GCS = 0, Overlay = 0, DirtyBit = 0, Xs = 0
[ 197.337424] user pgtable: 4k pages, 48-bit VAs, pgdp=0000000215dc0000
[ 197.337927] [0000000000000000] pgd=0000000000000000, p4d=0000000000000000
[ 197.338585] Internal error: Oops: 0000000096000044 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
[ 197.339058] Modules linked in:
[ 197.339296] CPU: 61 PID: 2369 Comm: usemem Not tainted
6.8.0-rc5-00392-g827ce916aa61 #38
[ 197.339920] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
[ 197.340273] pstate: 204000c5 (nzCv daIF +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
[ 197.340790] pc : deferred_split_scan+0x210/0x260
[ 197.341154] lr : deferred_split_scan+0x70/0x260
[ 197.341792] sp : ffff80008b453770
[ 197.342050] x29: ffff80008b453770 x28: 00000000000000f7 x27: ffff80008b453988
[ 197.342618] x26: ffff0000c260e540 x25: 0000000000000080 x24: ffff800081f0fe38
[ 197.343170] x23: 0000000000000000 x22: 00000000000000f8 x21: ffff80008b453988
[ 197.343703] x20: ffff0000ca897bd8 x19: ffff0000ca897b98 x18: 0000000000000000
[ 197.344245] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: 00000000041557f9
[ 197.344783] x14: 00000000041557f8 x13: 00000000041557f9 x12: 0000000000000000
[ 197.345343] x11: 0000000000000040 x10: ffff800083cfed48 x9 : ffff80008b4537c0
[ 197.345895] x8 : ffff800083cb2d10 x7 : 0000000000001b48 x6 : fffffc001a4a9090
[ 197.346458] x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : fffffc001a4a9090 x3 : fffffc001a4a9000
[ 197.346994] x2 : fffffc001a4a9000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000000
[ 197.347534] Call trace:
[ 197.347729] deferred_split_scan+0x210/0x260
[ 197.348069] do_shrink_slab+0x184/0x750
[ 197.348377] shrink_slab+0x4d4/0x9c0
[ 197.348646] shrink_node+0x214/0x860
[ 197.348923] do_try_to_free_pages+0xd0/0x560
[ 197.349257] try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages+0x14c/0x330
[ 197.349641] try_charge_memcg+0x1cc/0x788
[ 197.349957] __mem_cgroup_charge+0x6c/0xd0
[ 197.350282] __handle_mm_fault+0x1000/0x1a28
[ 197.350624] handle_mm_fault+0x7c/0x418
[ 197.350933] do_page_fault+0x100/0x690
[ 197.351232] do_translation_fault+0xb4/0xd0
[ 197.351564] do_mem_abort+0x4c/0xa8
[ 197.351841] el0_da+0x54/0xb8
[ 197.352087] el0t_64_sync_handler+0xe4/0x158
[ 197.352432] el0t_64_sync+0x190/0x198
[ 197.352718] Code: 2a0503e6 35fff4a6 a9491446 f90004c5 (f90000a6)
[ 197.353204] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
deferred_split_scan+0x210/0x260 is the code that I added back:
if (!folio_try_get(folio)) {
/* We lost race with folio_put() */
list_del_init(&folio->_deferred_list); <<<< HERE
ds_queue->split_queue_len--;
continue;
}
We have the spinlock here so that really should not be happening. So does that
mean the list is being manipulated outside of the lock somewhere? Or maybe its
mapping (actually one of the deferred_list pointers being cleared by the buddy?
I dunno... give up. Will resume on Monday. Have a good weekend.
