On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:25:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 20:24:38 +0900 NARIBAYASHI Akira <a.naribayashi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Depending on the memory configuration, isolate_freepages_block() may
> > scan pages out of the target range and causes panic.
> >
> > The problem is that pfn as argument of fast_isolate_around() could
> > be out of the target range. Therefore we should consider the case
> > where pfn < start_pfn, and also the case where end_pfn < pfn.
> >
> > This problem should have been addressd by the commit 6e2b7044c199
> > ("mm, compaction: make fast_isolate_freepages() stay within zone")
> > but there was an oversight.
> >
> > Case1: pfn < start_pfn
> >
> > <at memory compaction for node Y>
> > | node X's zone | node Y's zone
> > +-----------------+------------------------------...
> > pageblock ^ ^ ^
> > +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+...
> > ^ ^ ^
> > ^ ^ end_pfn
> > ^ start_pfn = cc->zone->zone_start_pfn
> > pfn
> > <---------> scanned range by "Scan After"
> >
> > Case2: end_pfn < pfn
> >
> > <at memory compaction for node X>
> > | node X's zone | node Y's zone
> > +-----------------+------------------------------...
> > pageblock ^ ^ ^
> > +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+...
> > ^ ^ ^
> > ^ ^ pfn
> > ^ end_pfn
> > start_pfn
> > <---------> scanned range by "Scan Before"
> >
> > It seems that there is no good reason to skip nr_isolated pages
> > just after given pfn. So let perform simple scan from start to end
> > instead of dividing the scan into "Before" and "After".
>
> Under what circumstances will this panic occur?
I'd also like to see a warning or oops report combined with the
/proc/zoneinfo file of the machine affected. This is to confirm it's an
actual bug and not a suspicion based on code inspection and a simplification
of the code. The answer determines whether this is a -stable candidate
or not.
Both Case 1 and 2 require that the initial pfn started outside the zone
which is unexpected. The clamping on zone boundary in fast_isolate_aropund()
is happening due to pageblock alignment as there is no guarantee that zones
are aligned on a hugepage boundary. pfn itself should have been fine as
it is the PFN of a page that was recently isolated.
The Scan After logic should also be ok. In the context it's called,
nr_isolated is the number of pages that were just isolated so
pfn + nr_isolated is the end of the free page that was just isolated.
The patch itself should be functionally fine but it rescans a region that has
already been isolated which is a little wasteful but it is straight-forward
and the overhead is probably negligible.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
