On 29 Aug 2024, at 15:55, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 11:46:42AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>> With vm debugging however I get more information about the issue:
>>
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: page: refcount:1 mapcount:1 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x7f589dd7f pfn:0x211d7f
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: memcg:ffff93ba245b8800
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: anon flags: 0x17fffe000020838(uptodate|dirty|lru|owner_2|swapbacked|node=0|zone=2|lastcpupid=0x1ffff)
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: raw: 017fffe000020838 ffffe59008475f88 ffffe59008476008 ffff93ba2abca5b1
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: raw: 00000007f589dd7f 0000000000000000 0000000100000000 ffff93ba245b8800
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: page dumped because: VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_locked(folio))
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: kernel BUG at mm/filemap.c:1509!
>
> This is in folio_unlock(). We're trying to unlock a folio which isn't
> locked!
>
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 74 Comm: ksmd Not tainted 6.11.0-rc5-next-20240827 #56
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.16.3-debian-1.16.3-2 04/01/2014
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: RIP: 0010:folio_unlock+0x43/0x50
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: Code: 93 fc ff ff f0 80 30 01 78 06 5b c3 cc cc cc cc 48 89 df 31 f6 5b e9 dc fc ff ff 48 c7 c6 a0 56 49 89 48 89 df e8 2d 03 05 00 <0f> 0b 90 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: RSP: 0018:ffffbb1dc02afe38 EFLAGS: 00010246
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: RAX: 000000000000003f RBX: ffffe59008475fc0 RCX: 0000000000000000
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000027 RDI: 00000000ffffffff
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: RBP: 0000000000000001 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000003
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: R10: ffffbb1dc02afce0 R11: ffffffff896c3608 R12: ffffe59008475fc0
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: R13: 0000000000000000 R14: ffffe59008470000 R15: ffffffff89f88060
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff93c15fc80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: CR2: 0000558e368d9c48 CR3: 000000010ca66004 CR4: 0000000000770ef0
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: PKRU: 55555554
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: Call Trace:
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: <TASK>
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ? die+0x32/0x80
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ? do_trap+0xd9/0x100
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ? folio_unlock+0x43/0x50
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ? do_error_trap+0x6a/0x90
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ? folio_unlock+0x43/0x50
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ? exc_invalid_op+0x4c/0x60
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ? folio_unlock+0x43/0x50
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ? folio_unlock+0x43/0x50
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ? folio_unlock+0x43/0x50
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ksm_scan_thread+0x175b/0x1d30
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ? __pfx_ksm_scan_thread+0x10/0x10
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: kthread+0xda/0x110
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x50
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
>> Aug 29 18:08:22 nvme-xfs-reflink-4k kernel: </TASK>
> [...]
>> Looking at the KSM code in context ksm_scan_thread+0x175 is mm/ksm.c routine
>> cmp_and_merge_page() on the split case:
>>
>> } else if (split) {
>> /*
>> * We are here if we tried to merge two pages and
>> * failed because they both belonged to the same
>> * compound page. We will split the page now, but no
>> * merging will take place.
>> * We do not want to add the cost of a full lock; if
>> * the page is locked, it is better to skip it and
>> * perhaps try again later.
>> */
>> if (!trylock_page(page))
>> return;
>> split_huge_page(page);
>> unlock_page(page);
>
> Obviously the page is locked when we call split_huge_page(). There's
> an assert inside it. And the lock bit is _supposed_ to be transferred
> to the head page of the page which is being split. My guess is that
> this is messed up somehow; we're perhaps transferring the lock bit to
> the wrong page?
The issue is that the change to split_huge_page() makes split_huge_page_to_list_to_order()
unlocks the wrong subpage. split_huge_page() used to pass the “page” pointer
to split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), which keeps that “page” still locked.
But this patch changes the “page” passed into split_huge_page_to_list_to_order()
always to the head page.
This fixes the crash on my x86 VM, but it can be improved:
diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
index 7c50aeed0522..eff5d2fb5d4e 100644
--- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h
+++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
@@ -320,10 +320,7 @@ bool can_split_folio(struct folio *folio, int *pextra_pins);
int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
unsigned int new_order);
int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list);
-static inline int split_huge_page(struct page *page)
-{
- return split_folio(page_folio(page));
-}
+int split_huge_page(struct page *page);
void deferred_split_folio(struct folio *folio);
void __split_huge_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index c29af9451d92..4d723dab4336 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -3297,6 +3297,25 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
return ret;
}
+int split_huge_page(struct page *page)
+{
+ unsigned int min_order = 0;
+ struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
+
+ if (folio_test_anon(folio))
+ goto out;
+
+ if (!folio->mapping) {
+ if (folio_test_pmd_mappable(folio))
+ count_vm_event(THP_SPLIT_PAGE_FAILED);
+ return -EBUSY;
+ }
+
+ min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping);
+out:
+ return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, min_order);
+}
+
int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list)
{
unsigned int min_order = 0;Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
