Date:	Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:41:14 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: BUG: Bad page state [was: Strange oopses in 2.6.30]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 08:11:51PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:02:33PM -0400, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 10:16 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:39:53AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > > (cc to Mel and some reviewer)
> > > 
> > > [added Rik so that he can get multiple copies, too. :)]
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Flags are:
> > > > > > 0000000000400000 -- __PG_MLOCKED
> > > > > > 800000000050000c -- my page flags
> > > > > >         3650000c -- Maxim's page flags
> > > > > > 0000000000693ce1 -- my PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE
> > > > > 
> > > > > I guess commit da456f14d (page allocator: do not disable interrupts in
> > > > > free_page_mlock()) is a bit wrong.
> > > > > 
> > > > > current code is:
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > static void free_hot_cold_page(struct page *page, int cold)
> > > > > {
> > > > > (snip)
> > > > >         int clearMlocked = PageMlocked(page);
> > > > > (snip)
> > > > >         if (free_pages_check(page))
> > > > >                 return;
> > > > > (snip)
> > > > >         local_irq_save(flags);
> > > > >         if (unlikely(clearMlocked))
> > > > >                 free_page_mlock(page);
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > 
> > > > > Oh well, we remove PG_Mlocked *after* free_pages_check().
> > > > > Then, it makes false-positive warning.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sorry, my review was also wrong. I think reverting this patch is better ;)
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I think a revert is way overkill. The intention of the patch is sound -
> > > > reducing the number of times interrupts are disabled. Having pages
> > > > with the PG_locked bit is now somewhat of an expected situation. I'd
> > > > prefer to go with either
> > > > 
> > > > 1. Unconditionally clearing the bit with TestClearPageLocked as the
> > > >    patch already posted does
> > > > 2. Removing PG_locked from the free_pages_check()
> > > > 3. Unlocking the pages as we go when an mlocked VMA is being torn town
> > > 
> > > Mel,
> > > 
> > > #3 SHOULD be happening in all cases.  The free_page_mlocked() function
> > > counts when this is not happening.  We tried to fix all cases that we
> > > encountered before this feature was submitted, but left the vm_stat
> > > there to report if more PG_mlocked leaks were introduced. 
> > 
> > That makes sense. I was surprised at the thought that the pages were
> > apparently not getting freed properly and upon investigation I could not
> > trivially reproduce the problem. Can someone with this problem post their
> > .config please in case I'm missing something in there?
> > 
> > > We also,
> > > inadvertently, left PG_mlocked in the flags to check at free.  We didn't
> > > hit this before your patch because free_page_mlock() did a test&clear on
> > > the PG_mlocked before checking the flags.  Since you moved the call, and
> > > used PageMlocked() instead of TestClearPageMlocked(), any PG_locked page
> > > will cause the bug.
> > > 
> > > So, we have another PG_mlocked flag leaking to free.  I don't think this
> > > is terribly serious in itself, and probably not deserving of a BUG_ON.
> > > It probably doesn't deserve a vm_stat, either, I guess.  However, it
> > > could indicate a more serious logic error and should be examined. So it
> > > would be nice to retain some indication that it's happening.
> > > 
> > > > The patch that addresses 1 seemed ok to me. What do you think?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Your alternative #2 sounds less expensive that test&clear.
> > > 
> > 
> > How about the following? The intention is to warn once when PG_mlocked
> > is set but continue to count the number of times the event occured.
> > 
> > ==== CUT HERE ====
> > mm: Warn once when a page is freed with PG_mlocked set
> > 
> > When a page is freed with the PG_mlocked set, it is considered an unexpected
> > but recoverable situation. A counter records how often this event happens
> > but due to commit da456f14d [page allocator: do not disable interrupts in
> > free_page_mlock()], the page state is being treated as a bad page which is
> > considered a severe bug.
> > 
> > This bug drops the severity of the report in the event a page is freed
> > with PG_mlocked set. A warning is printed once and the subsequent events
> > counted.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
> > --- 
> >  include/linux/page-flags.h |   10 +++++++++-
> >  mm/page_alloc.c            |    9 +++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/page-flags.h b/include/linux/page-flags.h
> > index d6792f8..81731cf 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/page-flags.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/page-flags.h
> > @@ -389,7 +389,15 @@ static inline void __ClearPageTail(struct page *page)
> >  	 1 << PG_private | 1 << PG_private_2 | \
> >  	 1 << PG_buddy	 | 1 << PG_writeback | 1 << PG_reserved | \
> >  	 1 << PG_slab	 | 1 << PG_swapcache | 1 << PG_active | \
> > -	 1 << PG_unevictable | __PG_MLOCKED)
> > +	 1 << PG_unevictable)
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Flags checked when a page is freed. Pages being freed should not have
> > + * these set but the situation is easily resolved and should just be
> > + * reported as a once-off warning.
> > + */
> > +#define PAGE_FLAGS_WARN_AT_FREE \
> > +	(__PG_MLOCKED)
> >  
> >  /*
> >   * Flags checked when a page is prepped for return by the page allocator.
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index a5f3c27..c8c029e 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -497,6 +497,15 @@ static void free_page_mlock(struct page *page) { }
> >  
> >  static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page)
> >  {
> > +	if (unlikely(page->flags & PAGE_FLAGS_WARN_AT_FREE)) {
> 
> this condition is always false. it's because caller clear PG_Mlocked flag
> before calling free_pages_check().
> 

This patch is intended as an alternative to the patch that replaces
PageMlocked() with TestClearPageMlocked() so I expect the flag to only be
set in the situation where PG_mlocked is not being cleared properly.

I see the unconditionoal clearing of the flag was merged since but even
that might be too heavy handed as we are making a locked bit operation
on every page free. That's unfortunate overhead to incur on every page
free to handle a situation that should not be occurring at all.

> 
> > +		WARN_ONCE(1, KERN_WARNING
> > +			"Sloppy page flags set process %s at pfn:%05lx\n"
> > +			"page:%p flags:%p\n",
> > +			current->comm, page_to_pfn(page),
> > +			page, (void *)page->flags);
> 
> hmm, mystery (void*) casting is here.
> 

Code was taken from bad_page(). I should have used 0x%lX here.

> 
> > +		page->flags &= ~PAGE_FLAGS_WARN_AT_FREE;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	if (unlikely(page_mapcount(page) |
> >  		(page->mapping != NULL)  |
> >  		(atomic_read(&page->_count) != 0) |
> 
> Howerver, I like this patch concept. this warning is useful and meaningful IMHO.
> 

This is a version that is based on top of current mainline that just
displays the warning. However, I think we should consider changing
TestClearPageMlocked() back to PageMlocked() and only clearing the flags
when the unusual condition is encountered.

==== CUT HERE ====
mm: Warn once when a page is freed with PG_mlocked set
    
When a page is freed with the PG_mlocked set, it is considered an unexpected
but recoverable situation. A counter records how often this event happens
but it is easy to miss that this event has occured at all. This patch warns
once when PG_mlocked is set to prompt debuggers to check the counter to
see how often it is happening.
    
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
--- 
 mm/page_alloc.c |   16 ++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 5d714f8..519ea6e 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -495,8 +495,16 @@ static inline void free_page_mlock(struct page *page)
 static void free_page_mlock(struct page *page) { }
 #endif
 
-static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page)
-{
+static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page, int wasMlocked)
+{
+	if (unlikely(wasMlocked)) {
+		WARN_ONCE(1, KERN_WARNING
+			"Page flag mlocked set for process %s at pfn:%05lx\n"
+			"page:%p flags:0x%lX\n",
+			current->comm, page_to_pfn(page),
+			page, page->flags|__PG_MLOCKED);
+	}
+
 	if (unlikely(page_mapcount(page) |
 		(page->mapping != NULL)  |
 		(atomic_read(&page->_count) != 0) |
@@ -562,7 +570,7 @@ static void __free_pages_ok(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
 	kmemcheck_free_shadow(page, order);
 
 	for (i = 0 ; i < (1 << order) ; ++i)
-		bad += free_pages_check(page + i);
+		bad += free_pages_check(page + i, wasMlocked);
 	if (bad)
 		return;
 
@@ -1027,7 +1035,7 @@ static void free_hot_cold_page(struct page *page, int cold)
 
 	if (PageAnon(page))
 		page->mapping = NULL;
-	if (free_pages_check(page))
+	if (free_pages_check(page, wasMlocked))
 		return;
 
 	if (!PageHighMem(page)) {

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists