On Fri, 31. May 18:17, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 5:56 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 9:13 PM Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 4:05 PM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
> > > >
> > > > Could you please post a full trace or panic?
> > > Please refer to the below scenario for how vbq->free broken.
> > > step 1: new_vmap_block is called in CPU0 and get vb->va->addr =
> > > 0xffffffc000400000
> > > step 2: vb is added to CPU1's vbq->vmap_block(xarray) by xa =
> > > addr_to_vb_xa(va->va_start);
> > > fc1e0d980037 ("mm/vmalloc: prevent stale TLBs in fully
> > > utilized blocks") introduce a per_cpu like xarray mechanism to have vb
> > > be added to the corresponding CPU's xarray but not local.
> > > step 3: vb is added to CPU0's vbq->free by
> > > list_add_tail_rcu(&vb->free_list, &vbq->free);
> > > step 4 : purge_fragmented_blocks get vbq of CPU1 and then get above vb
> > > step 5 : purge_fragmented_blocks delete vb from CPU0's list with
> > > taking the vbq->lock of CPU1
> > > step 5': vb_alloc on CPU0 could race with step5 and break the CPU0's vbq->free
> > >
> > > As fc1e0d980037 solved the problem of staled TLB issue, we need to
> > > introduce a new variable to record the CPU in vmap_block instead of
> > > reverting to iterate the list(will leave wrong TLB entry)
> > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 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.
> > > get_cpu here is to prevent current task from being migrated to other
> > > COREs before we get the per_cpu vmap_block_queue. Could you please
> > > suggest a correct way of doing this?
> >
> > not quite sure if you have to pay the price of disabling preempt.
> > Does the below Hailong suggested fix your problem?
> >
> > vb->cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> > vbq = per_cpu_ptr(&vmap_block_queue, vb->cpu);
> emm, it looks like 2 could race with 2' which also leads to wrong
> vbq->free status, right?
>
> taskA
> 1. CPU0:
> vb->cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> 2. CPU1:
> vbq = per_cpu_ptr(&vmap_block_queue, vb->cpu(0));
>
> taskB
> 2'. CPU0:
> static void *vb_alloc(unsigned long size, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> rcu_read_lock();
> vbq = raw_cpu_ptr(&vmap_block_queue);
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(vb, &vbq->free, free_list) {
> >
IIUC, for_each free_list is under RCU, so ..
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I am on a vacation, responds can be with delays.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Uladzislau Rezki
> >
> > Thanks
> > Barry
--
Best Regards,
Hailong.
