On 05/31/24 at 10:04am, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 11:05:20AM +0800, zhaoyang.huang wrote:
> > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > vmalloc area runs out in our ARM64 system during an erofs test as
> > vm_map_ram failed[1]. By following the debug log, we find that
> > vm_map_ram()->vb_alloc() will allocate new vb->va which corresponding
> > to 4MB vmalloc area as list_for_each_entry_rcu returns immediately
> > when vbq->free->next points to vbq->free. That is to say, 65536 times
> > of page fault after the list's broken will run out of the whole
> > vmalloc area. This should be introduced by one vbq->free->next point to
> > vbq->free which makes list_for_each_entry_rcu can not iterate the list
> > and find the BUG.
> >
> > [1]
> > PID: 1 TASK: ffffff80802b4e00 CPU: 6 COMMAND: "init"
> > #0 [ffffffc08006afe0] __switch_to at ffffffc08111d5cc
> > #1 [ffffffc08006b040] __schedule at ffffffc08111dde0
> > #2 [ffffffc08006b0a0] schedule at ffffffc08111e294
> > #3 [ffffffc08006b0d0] schedule_preempt_disabled at ffffffc08111e3f0
> > #4 [ffffffc08006b140] __mutex_lock at ffffffc08112068c
> > #5 [ffffffc08006b180] __mutex_lock_slowpath at ffffffc08111f8f8
> > #6 [ffffffc08006b1a0] mutex_lock at ffffffc08111f834
> > #7 [ffffffc08006b1d0] reclaim_and_purge_vmap_areas at ffffffc0803ebc3c
> > #8 [ffffffc08006b290] alloc_vmap_area at ffffffc0803e83fc
> > #9 [ffffffc08006b300] vm_map_ram at ffffffc0803e78c0
> >
> > Fixes: fc1e0d980037 ("mm/vmalloc: prevent stale TLBs in fully utilized blocks")
> >
> > Suggested-by: Hailong.Liu <hailong.liu@xxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> Is a problem related to run out of vmalloc space _only_ or it is a problem
> with broken list? From the commit message it is hard to follow the reason.
The broken list caused the vmalloc space run out. I think we should fix
the broken list.
Wondering if the issue can be always reproduced, or rarely seen. We
should try making a patch to fix the list breakage unless it's not
feasible. I will have a look at this.
>
> Could you please post a full trace or panic?
>
> > ---
> > v2: introduce cpu in vmap_block to record the right CPU number
> > v3: use get_cpu/put_cpu to prevent schedule between core
> > ---
> > ---
> > mm/vmalloc.c | 12 ++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > index 22aa63f4ef63..ecdb75d10949 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > @@ -2458,6 +2458,7 @@ struct vmap_block {
> > struct list_head free_list;
> > struct rcu_head rcu_head;
> > struct list_head purge;
> > + unsigned int cpu;
> > };
> >
> > /* Queue of free and dirty vmap blocks, for allocation and flushing purposes */
> > @@ -2586,10 +2587,12 @@ static void *new_vmap_block(unsigned int order, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > return ERR_PTR(err);
> > }
> >
> > + vb->cpu = get_cpu();
> > vbq = raw_cpu_ptr(&vmap_block_queue);
> > spin_lock(&vbq->lock);
> > list_add_tail_rcu(&vb->free_list, &vbq->free);
> > spin_unlock(&vbq->lock);
> > + put_cpu();
> >
> Why do you need get_cpu() here? Can you go with raw_smp_processor_id()
> and then access the per-cpu "vmap_block_queue"? get_cpu() disables
> preemption and then a spin-lock is take within this critical section.
> From the first glance PREEMPT_RT is broken in this case.
>
> I am on a vacation, responds can be with delays.
>
> --
> Uladzislau Rezki
>
