On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 09:02:43PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 06/25/24 at 02:40pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 07:40:21PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > On 06/25/24 at 12:32pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:30:33AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > > > On 06/24/24 at 02:16pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 10:02:50PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > > > > > On 06/21/24 at 11:44am, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 03:07:16PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 06/21/24 at 11:30am, Hailong Liu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 20. Jun 14:02, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2024-06-20 02:19, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > > > > > > ......
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > > > > > index be2dd281ea76..18e87cafbaf2 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -2542,7 +2542,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct vmap_block_queue, vmap_block_queue);
> > > > > > > > > static struct xarray *
> > > > > > > > > addr_to_vb_xa(unsigned long addr)
> > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > - int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % num_possible_cpus();
> > > > > > > > > + int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % nr_cpu_ids;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > return &per_cpu(vmap_block_queue, index).vmap_blocks;
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The problem i see is about not-initializing of the:
> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> > > > > > > > struct vmap_block_queue *vbq;
> > > > > > > > struct vfree_deferred *p;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > vbq = &per_cpu(vmap_block_queue, i);
> > > > > > > > spin_lock_init(&vbq->lock);
> > > > > > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vbq->free);
> > > > > > > > p = &per_cpu(vfree_deferred, i);
> > > > > > > > init_llist_head(&p->list);
> > > > > > > > INIT_WORK(&p->wq, delayed_vfree_work);
> > > > > > > > xa_init(&vbq->vmap_blocks);
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > correctly or fully. It is my bad i did not think that CPUs in a possible mask
> > > > > > > > can be non sequential :-/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > nr_cpu_ids - is not the max possible CPU. For example, in Nick case,
> > > > > > > > when he has two CPUs, num_possible_cpus() and nr_cpu_ids are the same.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I checked the generic version of setup_nr_cpu_ids(), from codes, they
> > > > > > > are different with my understanding.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > kernel/smp.c
> > > > > > > void __init setup_nr_cpu_ids(void)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > set_nr_cpu_ids(find_last_bit(cpumask_bits(cpu_possible_mask), NR_CPUS) + 1);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I see that it is not a weak function, so it is generic, thus the
> > > > > > behavior can not be overwritten, which is great. This does what we
> > > > > > need.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for checking this you are right!
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for confirming this.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then it is just a matter of proper initialization of the hash:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > > index 5d3aa2dc88a8..1733946f7a12 100644
> > > > > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > > @@ -5087,7 +5087,13 @@ void __init vmalloc_init(void)
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > vmap_area_cachep = KMEM_CACHE(vmap_area, SLAB_PANIC);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > + * We use "nr_cpu_ids" here because some architectures
> > > > > > + * may have "gaps" in cpu-possible-mask. It is OK for
> > > > > > + * per-cpu approaches but is not OK for cases where it
> > > > > > + * can be used as hashes also.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < nr_cpu_ids; i++) {
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wrong about earlier comments. Percpu variables are only available
> > > > > on possible CPUs. For those nonexistent possible CPUs of static percpu
> > > > > variable vmap_block_queue, there isn't memory allocated and mapped for
> > > > > them. So accessing into them will cause problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > In Nick's case, there are only CPU0, CPU2. If you access
> > > > > &per_cpu(vmap_block_queue, 1), problem occurs. So I think we may need to
> > > > > change to take other way for vbq. E.g:
> > > > > 1) Storing the vb in the nearest neighbouring vbq on possible CPU as
> > > > > below draft patch;
> > > > > 2) create an normal array to store vbq of size nr_cpu_ids, then we can
> > > > > store/fetch each vbq on non-possible CPU?
> > > > >
> > > > A correct way, i think, is to create a normal array. A quick fix can be
> > > > to stick to a next possible CPU.
> > > >
> > > > > The way 1) is simpler, the existing code can be adapted a little just as
> > > > > below.
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > index 633363997dec..59a8951cc6c0 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > @@ -2542,7 +2542,10 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct vmap_block_queue, vmap_block_queue);
> > > > > static struct xarray *
> > > > > addr_to_vb_xa(unsigned long addr)
> > > > > {
> > > > > - int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % num_possible_cpus();
> > > > > + int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % nr_cpu_ids;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!cpu_possible(idex))
> > > > > + index = cpumask_next(index, cpu_possible_mask);
> > > > >
> > > > cpumask_next() can return nr_cpu_ids if no next bits set.
> > >
> > > It won't. nr_cpu_ids is the largest index + 1, the hashed index will
> > > be: 0 =< index <= (nr_cpu_ids - 1) e.g cpu_possible_mask is
> > > b10001111, the nr_cpu_ids is 8, the largest bit is cpu7.
> > > cpu_possible(index) will check that. So the largest bit of cpumask_next()
> > > returns is (nr_cpu_ids - 1).
> > >
> > /**
> > * cpumask_next - get the next cpu in a cpumask
> > * @n: the cpu prior to the place to search (i.e. return will be > @n)
> > * @srcp: the cpumask pointer
> > *
> > * Return: >= nr_cpu_ids if no further cpus set.
>
> Ah, I got what you mean. In the vbq case, it may not have chance to get
> a return number as nr_cpu_ids. Becuase the hashed index limits the
> range to [0, nr_cpu_ids-1], and cpu_possible(index) will guarantee it
> won't be the highest cpu number [nr_cpu_ids-1] since CPU[nr_cpu_ids-1] must
> be possible CPU.
>
> Do I miss some corner cases?
>
Right. We guarantee that a highest CPU is available by doing: % nr_cpu_ids.
So we do not need to use *next_wrap() variant. You do not miss anything :)
Hailong Liu has proposed more simpler version:
<snip>
diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
index 11fe5ea208aa..e1e63ffb9c57 100644
--- a/mm/vmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
@@ -1994,8 +1994,9 @@ static struct xarray *
addr_to_vb_xa(unsigned long addr)
{
int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % num_possible_cpus();
+ int cpu = cpumask_nth(index, cpu_possible_mask);
- return &per_cpu(vmap_block_queue, index).vmap_blocks;
+ return &per_cpu(vmap_block_queue, cpu).vmap_blocks;
<snip>
which just takes a next CPU if an index is not set in the cpu_possible_mask.
The only thing that can be updated in the patch is to replace num_possible_cpu()
by the nr_cpu_ids.
Any thoughts? I think we need to fix it by a minor change so it is
easier to back-port on stable kernels.
--
Uladzislau Rezki
