On 3/6/2014 2:22 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 03/06/2014 03:26 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
We received several reports of bad page state when freeing CMA pages
previously allocated with alloc_contig_range:
<1>[ 1258.084111] BUG: Bad page state in process Binder_A pfn:63202
<1>[ 1258.089763] page:d21130b0 count:0 mapcount:1 mapping: (null)
index:0x7dfbf
<1>[ 1258.096109] page flags: 0x40080068(uptodate|lru|active|swapbacked)
Based on the page state, it looks like the page was still in use. The
page
flags do not make sense for the use case though. Further debugging showed
that despite alloc_contig_range returning success, at least one page
in the
range still remained in the buddy allocator.
There is an issue with isolate_freepages_block. In strict mode (which CMA
uses), if any pages in the range cannot be isolated,
isolate_freepages_block
should return failure 0. The current check keeps track of the total
number
of isolated pages and compares against the size of the range:
if (strict && nr_strict_required > total_isolated)
total_isolated = 0;
After taking the zone lock, if one of the pages in the range is not
in the buddy allocator, we continue through the loop and do not
increment total_isolated. If we end up over isolating by more than
one page (e.g. last since page needed is a higher order page), it
is not possible to detect that the page was skipped. The fix is to
I found it hard to grasp this sentence at first. Perhaps something like
"if in the last iteration of the loop we isolate more than one page
(e.g. ...), the check for total_isolated may pass and we fail to detect
that a page was skipped" would be better?
Yes, that sounds much better.
bail out if the loop immediately if we are in strict mode. There's
no benfit to continuing anyway since we need all pages to be
isolated.
That looks sound , but I wonder if it makes sense to keep the
nr_strict_required stuff after this change. The check could then simply
use 'if (pfn < end_pfn)' the same way as isolate_freepages_range does,
right?
I had that thought as well. I'll fix that up for v2 along with the rest
of your comments.
Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/compaction.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
index b48c525..3190cef 100644
--- a/mm/compaction.c
+++ b/mm/compaction.c
@@ -263,12 +263,21 @@ static unsigned long
isolate_freepages_block(struct compact_control *cc,
struct page *page = cursor;
nr_scanned++;
- if (!pfn_valid_within(blockpfn))
- continue;
+ if (!pfn_valid_within(blockpfn)) {
+ if (strict)
+ break;
+ else
+ continue;
+ }
+
if (!valid_page)
valid_page = page;
- if (!PageBuddy(page))
- continue;
+ if (!PageBuddy(page)) {
+ if (strict)
+ break;
+ else
+ continue;
+ }
/*
* The zone lock must be held to isolate freepages.
@@ -288,8 +297,12 @@ static unsigned long
isolate_freepages_block(struct compact_control *cc,
break;
/* Recheck this is a buddy page under lock */
- if (!PageBuddy(page))
- continue;
+ if (!PageBuddy(page)) {
+ if (strict)
+ break;
+ else
+ continue;
+ }
To avoid this triple if-else occurence, you could instead do a "goto
isolate_failed;" and put the if-else under said label at the end of the
loop, also allowing extra cleanup, something like this:
@@ -298,8 +298,6 @@ static unsigned long isolate_freepages_block(struct
compact_control *cc,
/* Found a free page, break it into order-0 pages */
isolated = split_free_page(page);
- if (!isolated && strict)
- break;
total_isolated += isolated;
for (i = 0; i < isolated; i++) {
list_add(&page->lru, freelist);
@@ -310,7 +308,13 @@ static unsigned long isolate_freepages_block(struct
compact_control *cc,
if (isolated) {
blockpfn += isolated - 1;
cursor += isolated - 1;
+ continue;
}
+isolate_fail:
+ if (strict)
+ break;
+ else
+ continue;
Thanks,
Vlastimil
/* Found a free page, break it into order-0 pages */
isolated = split_free_page(page);
Thanks,
Laura
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>