Re: [PATCH v3] mm/hugetlb: fix hugetlb vs. core-mm PT locking

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





Le 31/07/2024 à 18:33, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
On 31.07.24 16:54, Peter Xu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 02:21:03PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
We recently made GUP's common page table walking code to also walk hugetlb
VMAs without most hugetlb special-casing, preparing for the future of
having less hugetlb-specific page table walking code in the codebase.
Turns out that we missed one page table locking detail: page table locking
for hugetlb folios that are not mapped using a single PMD/PUD.

Assume we have hugetlb folio that spans multiple PTEs (e.g., 64 KiB
hugetlb folios on arm64 with 4 KiB base page size). GUP, as it walks the
page tables, will perform a pte_offset_map_lock() to grab the PTE table
lock.

However, hugetlb that concurrently modifies these page tables would
actually grab the mm->page_table_lock: with USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS, the
locks would differ. Something similar can happen right now with hugetlb
folios that span multiple PMDs when USE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCKS.

This issue can be reproduced [1], for example triggering:

[ 3105.936100] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 3105.939323] WARNING: CPU: 31 PID: 2732 at mm/gup.c:142 try_grab_folio+0x11c/0x188
[ 3105.944634] Modules linked in: [...]
[ 3105.974841] CPU: 31 PID: 2732 Comm: reproducer Not tainted 6.10.0-64.eln141.aarch64 #1 [ 3105.980406] Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS edk2-20240524-4.fc40 05/24/2024 [ 3105.986185] pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
[ 3105.991108] pc : try_grab_folio+0x11c/0x188
[ 3105.994013] lr : follow_page_pte+0xd8/0x430
[ 3105.996986] sp : ffff80008eafb8f0
[ 3105.999346] x29: ffff80008eafb900 x28: ffffffe8d481f380 x27: 00f80001207cff43 [ 3106.004414] x26: 0000000000000001 x25: 0000000000000000 x24: ffff80008eafba48 [ 3106.009520] x23: 0000ffff9372f000 x22: ffff7a54459e2000 x21: ffff7a546c1aa978 [ 3106.014529] x20: ffffffe8d481f3c0 x19: 0000000000610041 x18: 0000000000000001 [ 3106.019506] x17: 0000000000000001 x16: ffffffffffffffff x15: 0000000000000000 [ 3106.024494] x14: ffffb85477fdfe08 x13: 0000ffff9372ffff x12: 0000000000000000 [ 3106.029469] x11: 1fffef4a88a96be1 x10: ffff7a54454b5f0c x9 : ffffb854771b12f0 [ 3106.034324] x8 : 0008000000000000 x7 : ffff7a546c1aa980 x6 : 0008000000000080 [ 3106.038902] x5 : 00000000001207cf x4 : 0000ffff9372f000 x3 : ffffffe8d481f000 [ 3106.043420] x2 : 0000000000610041 x1 : 0000000000000001 x0 : 0000000000000000
[ 3106.047957] Call trace:
[ 3106.049522]  try_grab_folio+0x11c/0x188
[ 3106.051996]  follow_pmd_mask.constprop.0.isra.0+0x150/0x2e0
[ 3106.055527]  follow_page_mask+0x1a0/0x2b8
[ 3106.058118]  __get_user_pages+0xf0/0x348
[ 3106.060647]  faultin_page_range+0xb0/0x360
[ 3106.063651]  do_madvise+0x340/0x598

Let's make huge_pte_lockptr() effectively use the same PT locks as any
core-mm page table walker would. Add ptep_lockptr() to obtain the PTE
page table lock using a pte pointer -- unfortunately we cannot convert
pte_lockptr() because virt_to_page() doesn't work with kmap'ed page
tables we can have with CONFIG_HIGHPTE.

Take care of PTE tables possibly spanning multiple pages, and take care of
CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS complexity when e.g., PMD_SIZE == PUD_SIZE. For
example, with CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS == 2, core-mm would detect
with hugepagesize==PMD_SIZE pmd_leaf() and use the pmd_lockptr(), which
would end up just mapping to the per-MM PT lock.

There is one ugly case: powerpc 8xx, whereby we have an 8 MiB hugetlb
folio being mapped using two PTE page tables.  While hugetlb wants to take
the PMD table lock, core-mm would grab the PTE table lock of one of both
PTE page tables.  In such corner cases, we have to make sure that both
locks match, which is (fortunately!) currently guaranteed for 8xx as it
does not support SMP and consequently doesn't use split PT locks.

[1] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Fall%2F1bbfcc7f-f222-45a5-ac44-c5a1381c596d%40redhat.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7Cf91a0b3cdcab46c7bd6108dcb17e9454%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C638580404425532305%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FQ4QFqbyThojISHACwzxCdtYbgwc4JsMIP%2Bmx4PneOk%3D&reserved=0

Fixes: 9cb28da54643 ("mm/gup: handle hugetlb in the generic follow_page_mask code")
Reviewed-by: James Houghton <jthoughton@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Muchun Song <muchun.song@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>

Nitpick: I wonder whether some of the lines can be simplified if we write
it downwards from PUD, like,

huge_pte_lockptr()
{
         if (size >= PUD_SIZE)
            return pud_lockptr(...);
         if (size >= PMD_SIZE)
            return pmd_lockptr(...);
         /* Sub-PMD only applies to !CONFIG_HIGHPTE, see pte_alloc_huge() */
         WARN_ON(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HIGHPTE));
         return ptep_lockptr(...);
}

Let me think about it. For PUD_SIZE == PMD_SIZE instead of like core-mm
calling pmd_lockptr we'd call pud_lockptr().

I guess it is only when including asm-generic/pgtable-nopmd.h

Otherwise you should have more than one entry in the PMD table so PMD_SIZE would always be smaller than PUD_SIZE, wouldn't it ?

So maybe some simplification could be done, like having pud_lock() a nop in that case ?


Christophe




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux