On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 2:48 PM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 02:21:39PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 2:12 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 1:32 PM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 12:46:13PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > > > Lokesh recently raised an issue about UFFDIO_MOVE getting into a deadlock > > > > > state when it goes into split_folio() with raised folio refcount. > > > > > split_folio() expects the reference count to be exactly > > > > > mapcount + num_pages_in_folio + 1 (see can_split_folio()) and fails with > > > > > EAGAIN otherwise. If multiple processes are trying to move the same > > > > > large folio, they raise the refcount (all tasks succeed in that) then > > > > > one of them succeeds in locking the folio, while others will block in > > > > > folio_lock() while keeping the refcount raised. The winner of this > > > > > race will proceed with calling split_folio() and will fail returning > > > > > EAGAIN to the caller and unlocking the folio. The next competing process > > > > > will get the folio locked and will go through the same flow. In the > > > > > meantime the original winner will be retried and will block in > > > > > folio_lock(), getting into the queue of waiting processes only to repeat > > > > > the same path. All this results in a livelock. > > > > > An easy fix would be to avoid waiting for the folio lock while holding > > > > > folio refcount, similar to madvise_free_huge_pmd() where folio lock is > > > > > acquired before raising the folio refcount. > > > > > Modify move_pages_pte() to try locking the folio first and if that fails > > > > > and the folio is large then return EAGAIN without touching the folio > > > > > refcount. If the folio is single-page then split_folio() is not called, > > > > > so we don't have this issue. > > > > > Lokesh has a reproducer [1] and I verified that this change fixes the > > > > > issue. > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/lokeshgidra/uffd_move_ioctl_deadlock > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > One question irrelevant of this change below.. > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > mm/userfaultfd.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++- > > > > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/userfaultfd.c b/mm/userfaultfd.c > > > > > index 867898c4e30b..f17f8290c523 100644 > > > > > --- a/mm/userfaultfd.c > > > > > +++ b/mm/userfaultfd.c > > > > > @@ -1236,6 +1236,7 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd, > > > > > */ > > > > > if (!src_folio) { > > > > > struct folio *folio; > > > > > + bool locked; > > > > > > > > > > /* > > > > > * Pin the page while holding the lock to be sure the > > > > > @@ -1255,12 +1256,26 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd, > > > > > goto out; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > + locked = folio_trylock(folio); > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * We avoid waiting for folio lock with a raised refcount > > > > > + * for large folios because extra refcounts will result in > > > > > + * split_folio() failing later and retrying. If multiple > > > > > + * tasks are trying to move a large folio we can end > > > > > + * livelocking. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (!locked && folio_test_large(folio)) { > > > > > + spin_unlock(src_ptl); > > > > > + err = -EAGAIN; > > > > > + goto out; > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > folio_get(folio); > > > > > src_folio = folio; > > > > > src_folio_pte = orig_src_pte; > > > > > spin_unlock(src_ptl); > > > > > > > > > > - if (!folio_trylock(src_folio)) { > > > > > + if (!locked) { > > > > > pte_unmap(&orig_src_pte); > > > > > pte_unmap(&orig_dst_pte); > > > > > > > > .. just notice this. Are these problematic? I mean, orig_*_pte are stack > > > > variables, afaict. I'd expect these things blow on HIGHPTE.. > > > > > > Ugh! Yes, I think so. From a quick look, move_pages_pte() is the only > > > place we have this issue and I don't see a reason for copying src_pte > > > and dst_pte values. I'll spend some more time trying to understand if > > > we really need these local copies. > > > > Ah, we copy the values to later check if PTEs changed from under us. > > But I see no reason we need to use orig_{src|dst}_pte instead of > > {src|dst}_pte when doing pte_unmap(). I think we can safely replace > > That looks like something we just overlooked before, meanwhile it's > undetectable on !HIGHPTE anyway.. in which case the addr ignored, and that > turns always into an rcu unlock. > > > them with the original ones. WDYT? > > Agreed. Maybe not "the original ones" if we're looking for words to put > into the commit message: it could be "we should kunmap() whatever we > kmap()ed before", or something better. Sounds good to me. I'll give others one day to provide their input and will post a fix. Thanks! > > Thanks, > > -- > Peter Xu >
