On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 18:01:15 +0200 Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 17:26:47 +0200 > Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 12:18:05 +0530 > > Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 09/02/2020 05:12 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > > This patch series includes fixes for debug_vm_pgtable test code so that > > > > they follow page table updates rules correctly. The first two patches introduce > > > > changes w.r.t ppc64. The patches are included in this series for completeness. We can > > > > merge them via ppc64 tree if required. > > > > > > > > Hugetlb test is disabled on ppc64 because that needs larger change to satisfy > > > > page table update rules. > > > > > > > > These tests are broken w.r.t page table update rules and results in kernel > > > > crash as below. > > > > > > > > [ 21.083519] kernel BUG at arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c:304! > > > > cpu 0x0: Vector: 700 (Program Check) at [c000000c6d1e76c0] > > > > pc: c00000000009a5ec: assert_pte_locked+0x14c/0x380 > > > > lr: c0000000005eeeec: pte_update+0x11c/0x190 > > > > sp: c000000c6d1e7950 > > > > msr: 8000000002029033 > > > > current = 0xc000000c6d172c80 > > > > paca = 0xc000000003ba0000 irqmask: 0x03 irq_happened: 0x01 > > > > pid = 1, comm = swapper/0 > > > > kernel BUG at arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c:304! > > > > [link register ] c0000000005eeeec pte_update+0x11c/0x190 > > > > [c000000c6d1e7950] 0000000000000001 (unreliable) > > > > [c000000c6d1e79b0] c0000000005eee14 pte_update+0x44/0x190 > > > > [c000000c6d1e7a10] c000000001a2ca9c pte_advanced_tests+0x160/0x3d8 > > > > [c000000c6d1e7ab0] c000000001a2d4fc debug_vm_pgtable+0x7e8/0x1338 > > > > [c000000c6d1e7ba0] c0000000000116ec do_one_initcall+0xac/0x5f0 > > > > [c000000c6d1e7c80] c0000000019e4fac kernel_init_freeable+0x4dc/0x5a4 > > > > [c000000c6d1e7db0] c000000000012474 kernel_init+0x24/0x160 > > > > [c000000c6d1e7e20] c00000000000cbd0 ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x6c > > > > > > > > With DEBUG_VM disabled > > > > > > > > [ 20.530152] BUG: Kernel NULL pointer dereference on read at 0x00000000 > > > > [ 20.530183] Faulting instruction address: 0xc0000000000df330 > > > > cpu 0x33: Vector: 380 (Data SLB Access) at [c000000c6d19f700] > > > > pc: c0000000000df330: memset+0x68/0x104 > > > > lr: c00000000009f6d8: hash__pmdp_huge_get_and_clear+0xe8/0x1b0 > > > > sp: c000000c6d19f990 > > > > msr: 8000000002009033 > > > > dar: 0 > > > > current = 0xc000000c6d177480 > > > > paca = 0xc00000001ec4f400 irqmask: 0x03 irq_happened: 0x01 > > > > pid = 1, comm = swapper/0 > > > > [link register ] c00000000009f6d8 hash__pmdp_huge_get_and_clear+0xe8/0x1b0 > > > > [c000000c6d19f990] c00000000009f748 hash__pmdp_huge_get_and_clear+0x158/0x1b0 (unreliable) > > > > [c000000c6d19fa10] c0000000019ebf30 pmd_advanced_tests+0x1f0/0x378 > > > > [c000000c6d19fab0] c0000000019ed088 debug_vm_pgtable+0x79c/0x1244 > > > > [c000000c6d19fba0] c0000000000116ec do_one_initcall+0xac/0x5f0 > > > > [c000000c6d19fc80] c0000000019a4fac kernel_init_freeable+0x4dc/0x5a4 > > > > [c000000c6d19fdb0] c000000000012474 kernel_init+0x24/0x160 > > > > [c000000c6d19fe20] c00000000000cbd0 ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x6c > > > > > > > > Changes from v3: > > > > * Address review feedback > > > > * Move page table depost and withdraw patch after adding pmdlock to avoid bisect failure. > > > > > > This version > > > > > > - Builds on x86, arm64, s390, arc, powerpc and riscv (defconfig with DEBUG_VM_PGTABLE) > > > - Runs on arm64 and x86 without any regression, atleast nothing that I have noticed > > > - Will be great if this could get tested on s390, arc, riscv, ppc32 platforms as well > > > > When I quickly tested v3, it worked fine, but now it turned out to > > only work fine "sometimes", both v3 and v4. I need to look into it > > further, but so far it seems related to the hugetlb_advanced_tests(). > > > > I guess there was already some discussion on this test, but we did > > not receive all of the thread(s). Please always add at least > > linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and maybe myself and Vasily Gorbik <gor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > for further discussions. > > BTW, with myself I mean the new address gerald.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. > The old gerald.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxx seems to work (again), but is not > very reliable. > > BTW2, a quick test with this change (so far) made the issues on s390 > go away: > > @@ -1069,7 +1074,7 @@ static int __init debug_vm_pgtable(void) > spin_unlock(ptl); > > #ifndef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64 > - hugetlb_advanced_tests(mm, vma, ptep, pte_aligned, vaddr, prot); > + hugetlb_advanced_tests(mm, vma, (pte_t *) pmdp, pmd_aligned, vaddr, prot); > #endif > > spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock); > > That would more match the "pte_t pointer" usage for hugetlb code, > i.e. just cast a pmd_t pointer to it. Also changed to pmd_aligned, > but I think the root cause is the pte_t pointer. > > Not entirely sure though if that would really be the correct fix. > I somehow lost whatever little track I had about what these tests > really want to check, and if that would still be valid with that > change. Another potential issue, apparently not for s390, but maybe for others, is that the vaddr passed to hugetlb_advanced_tests() is also not pmd/pud size aligned, like you did in pmd/pud_advanced_tests(). I guess for the hugetlb_advanced_tests() you need to choose if you want to test pmd or pud hugepages, and accordingly prepare the *ptep, pfn and vaddr input. If you only check for CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE, then probably only pmd hugepages would be safe, there might be architectures only supporting one hugepage size. So, for s390, at least the ptep input value is a problem. Still need to better understand how it goes wrong, but it seems to be fixed when using proper pmdp, and also works with pudp. For others, especially the apparent issues on ppc64, the other non-hugepage aligned input pfn and vaddr might also be an issue, e.g. power at least seems to use the vaddr in its set_huge_pte_at() implementation for some pmd_off(mm, addr) calculation. Again, sorry if this was already discussed, I missed most of it and honestly didn't properly look at the scarce mails that we did receive...
