On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:12 PM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 13.06.24 11:06, Barry Song wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 8:49 PM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 13.06.24 10:46, Barry Song wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 12:08 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> The folio_test_anon(folio)==false case within do_swap_page() has been
> >>>> relocated to folio_add_new_anon_rmap(). Additionally, two other callers
> >>>> consistently pass anonymous folios.
> >>>>
> >>>> stack 1:
> >>>> remove_migration_pmd
> >>>> -> folio_add_anon_rmap_pmd
> >>>> -> __folio_add_anon_rmap
> >>>>
> >>>> stack 2:
> >>>> __split_huge_pmd_locked
> >>>> -> folio_add_anon_rmap_ptes
> >>>> -> __folio_add_anon_rmap
> >>>>
> >>>> __folio_add_anon_rmap() only needs to handle the cases
> >>>> folio_test_anon(folio)==true now.
> >>>
> >>> My team reported a case where swapoff() is calling
> >>> folio_add_anon_rmap_pte *not* folio_add_anon_rmap_ptes
> >>> with one new anon (!folio_test_anon(folio)).
> >>>
> >>> I will double check all folio_add_anon_rmap_pte() cases.
> >>
> >> Right, swapoff() path is a bit special (e.g., we don't do any kind of
> >> batching on the swapoff() path).
> >>
> >> But we should never get a new large anon folio there, or could that now
> >> happen?
> >
> > My team encountered the following issue while testing this RFC
> > series on real hardware. Let me take a look to identify the
> > problem.
> >
> > [ 261.214195][T11285] page:000000004cdd779e refcount:4 mapcount:1
> > mapping:00000000ba142c22 index:0x1 pfn:0x1b30a6
> > [ 261.214213][T11285] memcg:ffffff8003678000
> > [ 261.214217][T11285] aops:swap_aops
> > [ 261.214233][T11285] flags:
> > 0x2000000000081009(locked|uptodate|owner_priv_1|swapbacked|zone=1|kasantag=0x0)
> > [ 261.214241][T11285] page_type: 0x0()
> > [ 261.214246][T11285] raw: 2000000000081009 0000000000000000
> > dead000000000122 0000000000000000
> > [ 261.214251][T11285] raw: 0000000000000001 00000000000d84b3
> > 0000000400000000 ffffff8003678000
> > [ 261.214254][T11285] page dumped because:
> > VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_anon(folio))
> > [ 261.214257][T11285] page_owner tracks the page as allocated
> > [ 261.214260][T11285] page last allocated via order 0, migratetype
> > Movable, gfp_mask 0x2140cca(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE|__GFP_COMP), pid
> > 11285, tgid 11285 (swapoff), ts 261214177545, free_ts 261151875699
> > [ 261.214268][T11285] post_alloc_hook+0x1b8/0x1c0
> > [ 261.214284][T11285] prep_new_page+0x28/0x13c
> > [ 261.214291][T11285] get_page_from_freelist+0x198c/0x1aa4
> > [ 261.214298][T11285] __alloc_pages+0x15c/0x330
> > [ 261.214304][T11285] __folio_alloc+0x1c/0x4c
> > [ 261.214310][T11285] __read_swap_cache_async+0xd8/0x48c
> > [ 261.214320][T11285] swap_cluster_readahead+0x158/0x324
> > [ 261.214326][T11285] swapin_readahead+0x64/0x448
> > [ 261.214331][T11285] __arm64_sys_swapoff+0x6ec/0x14b0
> > [ 261.214337][T11285] invoke_syscall+0x58/0x114
> > [ 261.214353][T11285] el0_svc_common+0xac/0xe0
> > [ 261.214360][T11285] do_el0_svc+0x1c/0x28
> > [ 261.214366][T11285] el0_svc+0x38/0x68
> > [ 261.214372][T11285] el0t_64_sync_handler+0x68/0xbc
> > [ 261.214376][T11285] el0t_64_sync+0x1a8/0x1ac
> > [ 261.214381][T11285] page last free pid 90 tgid 90 stack trace:
> > [ 261.214386][T11285] free_unref_page_prepare+0x338/0x374
> > [ 261.214395][T11285] free_unref_page_list+0x84/0x378
> > [ 261.214400][T11285] shrink_folio_list+0x1234/0x13e4
> > [ 261.214409][T11285] evict_folios+0x1458/0x19b4
> > [ 261.214417][T11285] try_to_shrink_lruvec+0x1c8/0x264
> > [ 261.214422][T11285] shrink_one+0xa8/0x234
> > [ 261.214427][T11285] shrink_node+0xb38/0xde0
> > [ 261.214432][T11285] balance_pgdat+0x7a4/0xdb4
> > [ 261.214437][T11285] kswapd+0x290/0x4e4
> > [ 261.214442][T11285] kthread+0x114/0x1bc
> > [ 261.214459][T11285] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> > [ 261.214477][T11285] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [ 261.214480][T11285] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 11285 at mm/rmap.c:1305
> > folio_add_anon_rmap_ptes+0x2b4/0x330
> >
> > [ 261.215403][T11285] pstate: 63400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO +TCO +DIT
> > -SSBS BTYPE=--)
> > [ 261.215423][T11285] pc : folio_add_anon_rmap_ptes+0x2b4/0x330
> > [ 261.215428][T11285] lr : folio_add_anon_rmap_ptes+0x2b4/0x330
> > [ 261.215433][T11285] sp : ffffffc0a7dbbbf0
> > [ 261.215437][T11285] x29: ffffffc0a7dbbbf0 x28: ffffff8040860a08
> > x27: ffffff80db480000
> > [ 261.215445][T11285] x26: fffffffe04cc2980 x25: ffffff808f77f120
> > x24: 0000007b44941000
> > [ 261.215452][T11285] x23: 0000000000000001 x22: 0000000000000001
> > x21: fffffffe04cc2980
> > [ 261.215459][T11285] x20: ffffff80db480000 x19: fffffffe04cc2980
> > x18: ffffffed011dae80
> > [ 261.215465][T11285] x17: 0000000000000001 x16: ffffffffffffffff
> > x15: 0000000000000004
> > [ 261.215471][T11285] x14: ffffff82fb73fac0 x13: 0000000000000003
> > x12: 0000000000000003
> > [ 261.215476][T11285] x11: 00000000fffeffff x10: c0000000fffeffff x9
> > : 0d46c0889b468e00
> > [ 261.215483][T11285] x8 : 0d46c0889b468e00 x7 : 545b5d3935343431 x6
> > : 322e31363220205b
> > [ 261.215489][T11285] x5 : ffffffed013de407 x4 : ffffffed00698967 x3
> > : 0000000000000000
> > [ 261.215495][T11285] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : ffffffc0a7dbb8c0 x0
> > : ffffff8068c15c80
> > [ 261.215501][T11285] Call trace:
> > [ 261.215504][T11285] folio_add_anon_rmap_ptes+0x2b4/0x330
> > [ 261.215509][T11285] __arm64_sys_swapoff+0x8cc/0x14b0
> > [ 261.215516][T11285] invoke_syscall+0x58/0x114
> > [ 261.215526][T11285] el0_svc_common+0xac/0xe0
> > [ 261.215532][T11285] do_el0_svc+0x1c/0x28
> > [ 261.215539][T11285] el0_svc+0x38/0x68
> > [ 261.215544][T11285] el0t_64_sync_handler+0x68/0xbc
> > [ 261.215548][T11285] el0t_64_sync+0x1a8/0x1ac
> > [ 261.215552][T11285] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>
> Ah, yes. in unuse_pte(), you'll have to do the right thing if
> !folio_test(anon) before doing the folio_add_anon_rmap_pte().
>
> You might have a fresh anon folio in the swapcache that was never mapped
> (hopefully order-0, otherwise we'd likely be in trouble).
Yes. It is order-0
[ 261.214260][T11285] page last allocated via order 0, migratetype
Otherwise, we would have encountered this VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO?
__folio_add_anon_rmap()
{
...
VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio) &&
level != RMAP_LEVEL_PMD, folio);
...
}
Given that nobody has ever reported this warning, I assume all callers
using folio_add_anon_rmap_pte(s) are right now safe to move to ?
if (!folio_test_anon(folio))
folio_add_new_anon_rmap(folio, vma, address, rmap_flags);
else
folio_add_anon_rmap_pte(s)
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
Thanks
Barry
