Message-ID: <20120417122202.GF2359@suse.de>
Date:	Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:22:02 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux-S390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] s390: mm: rmap: Transfer storage key to struct page
 under the page lock

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 02:14:09PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, Mel Gorman wrote:
> 
> > This patch is horribly ugly and there has to be a better way of doing
> > it. I'm looking for suggestions on what s390 can do here that is not
> > painful or broken. 
> > 
> > The following bug was reported on s390
> > 
> > kernel BUG at
> > /usr/src/packages/BUILD/kernel-default-3.0.13/linux-3.0/lib/radix-tree.c:477!
> > illegal operation: 0001 [#1] SMP
> > Modules linked in: ext2 dm_round_robin dm_multipath sg sd_mod crc_t10dif fuse
> > loop dm_mod ipv6 qeth_l3 ipv6_lib zfcp scsi_transport_fc scsi_tgt qeth qdio
> > ccwgroup ext3 jbd mbcache dasd_eckd_mod dasd_mod scsi_dh_rdac scsi_dh_emc
> > scsi_dh_alua scsi_dh_hp_sw scsi_dh scsi_mod
> > Supported: Yes
> > CPU: 3 Not tainted 3.0.13-0.27-default #1
> > Process kpartx_id (pid: 24381, task: 000000004d938138, ksp: 00000000733539f0)
> > Krnl PSW : 0404000180000000 000000000037935e
> > (radix_tree_tag_set+0xfe/0x118)
> >            R:0 T:1 IO:0 EX:0 Key:0 M:1 W:0 P:0 AS:0 CC:0 PM:0 EA:3
> > Krnl GPRS: 0000000000000002 0000000000000018 00000000004e82a8 0000000000000000
> >            0000000000000007 0000000000000003 00000000004e82a8 00000000007280c0
> >            0000000000000000 0000000000000000 00000000fac55d5f 0000000000000000
> >            000003e000000006 0000000000529f88 0000000000000000 0000000073353ad0
> > Krnl Code: 0000000000379352: a7cafffa           ahi     %r12,-6
> >            0000000000379356: a7f4ffb5           brc     15,3792c0
> >            000000000037935a: a7f40001           brc     15,37935c
> >           >000000000037935e: a7f40000           brc     15,37935e
> >            0000000000379362: b90200bb           ltgr    %r11,%r11
> >            0000000000379366: a784fff0           brc     8,379346
> >            000000000037936a: a7f4ffe1           brc     15,37932c
> >            000000000037936e: a7f40001           brc     15,379370
> > Call Trace:
> > ([<00000000002080ae>] __set_page_dirty_nobuffers+0x10a/0x1d0)
> >  [<0000000000234970>] page_remove_rmap+0x100/0x104
> >  [<0000000000228608>] zap_pte_range+0x194/0x608
> >  [<0000000000228caa>] unmap_page_range+0x22e/0x33c
> >  [<0000000000228ec2>] unmap_vmas+0x10a/0x274
> >  [<000000000022f2f6>] exit_mmap+0xd2/0x254
> >  [<00000000001472d6>] mmput+0x5e/0x144
> >  [<000000000014d306>] exit_mm+0x196/0x1d4
> >  [<000000000014f650>] do_exit+0x18c/0x408
> >  [<000000000014f92c>] do_group_exit+0x60/0xec
> >  [<000000000014f9ea>] SyS_exit_group+0x32/0x40
> >  [<00000000004e1660>] sysc_noemu+0x16/0x1c
> >  [<000003fffd23ab96>] 0x3fffd23ab96
> > Last Breaking-Event-Address:
> >  [<000000000037935a>] radix_tree_tag_set+0xfa/0x118
> > 
> > While this bug was reproduced on a 3.0.x kernel, there is no reason why
> > it should not happen in mainline.
> > 
> > The bug was triggered because a page had a valid mapping but by the time
> > set_page_dirty() was called there was no valid entry in the radix tree.
> > This was reproduced while underlying storage was unplugged but this may
> > be indirectly related to the problem.
> > 
> > This bug only triggers on s390 and may be explained by a race. Normally
> > when pages are being readahead in read_cache_pages(), an attempt is made
> > to add the page to the page cache. If that fails, the page is invalidated
> > by locking it, giving it a valid mapping, calling do_invalidatepage()
> > and then setting mapping to NULL again. It's similar with page cache is
> > being deleted. The page is locked, the tree lock is taken, it's removed
> > from the radix tree and the mapping is set to NULL.
> > 
> > In many cases looking up the radix tree is protected by a combination of
> > the page lock and the tree lock. When zapping pages, the page lock is not
> > taken which does not matter as most architectures do nothing special with
> > the mapping and for file-backed pages, the mapping should be pinned by
> > the open file. However, s390 also calls set_dirty_page() for
> > PageSwapCache() pages where it is potentially racing against
> > reuse_swap_page() for example.
> > 
> > This patch splits the propagation of the storage key into a separate
> > function and introduces a new variant of page_remove_rmap() called
> > page_remove_rmap_nolock() which is only used during page table zapping
> > that attempts to acquire the page lock. The approach is ugly although it
> > works in that the bug can no longer be triggered. At the time the page
> > lock is required, the PTL is held so it cannot sleep so it busy waits on
> > trylock_page(). That potentially deadlocks against reclaim which holds
> > the page table lock and is trying to acquire the pagetable lock so in
> > some cases there is no choice except to race. In the file-backed case,
> > this is ok because the address space will be valid (zap_pte_range() makes
> > the same assumption. However, s390 needs a better way of guarding against
> > PageSwapCache pages being removed from the radix tree while set_page_dirty()
> > is being called. The patch would be marginally better if in the PageSwapCache
> > case we simply tried to lock once and in the contended case just fail to
> > propogate the storage key. I lack familiarity with the s390 architecture
> > to be certain if this is safe or not. Suggestions on a better fix?
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> 
> I'm very confused - and wonder if you are too ;)
> 

It would not be the first time :)

> Please forgive me if I've not been patient enough in reading through
> all you've written, and knocking it into my skull: ask me to go back
> and read again.
> 
> But it seems to me that you're approaching this from the wrong end
> (page_remove_rmap), instead of from the end that's giving rise to the
> problem - perhaps because you've not yet identified that other end?
> 

Not as precisely as I would have like. I do not have access to the machine
in question unfortunately.

> I'm confused as to whether you see this problem with file pages,
> or with anon-swap-cache pages, or with both, or not yet determined.
> 

PageSwapCache pages only.

> The obvious places which set page->mapping = NULL or ClearPageSwapCache,
> once they've been visible to the outside world, are careful to do so at
> the same time as removing the radix_tree entry, holding mapping->tree_lock.
> 

The problem here is not that page->mapping is NULL but that the page->mapping
is valid while the page is not in the radix tree.

> And __set_page_dirty_nobuffers(), the set_page_dirty variant implicated
> in the trace above, is careful to recheck mapping under tree_lock, as I
> think are the others.  There is an issue if mapping itself could vanish
> while in there, but that's not a danger in page_remove_rmap().
> 
> (You do remind me that I meant years ago to switch swapper_space over
> to the much simpler __set_page_dirty_no_writeback(), which shmem has
> used for ages; but as far as this problem goes, that would probably
> be at best a workaround, rather than the proper fix.)
> 

It would be a workaround. If in the future we wanted to treat swapper
space more like a normal file inode and writeback dirty pages from
the flusher thread then this bug would just pop its head back up.

> You indicate read_cache_pages_invalidate_page() above, and yes that's
> weird the way it sets and unsets page->mapping; I never came across it
> before, but IIUC it's safe because those pages have not yet been made
> visible to the outside world.  (Or do we have a speculative pagecache
> issue here?)
> 

We do not have a speculative pagecache issue here that I'm aware of. 

> You compare do_invalidatepage() with deletion from page cache, but I hope
> that's mistaken: aren't such pages usually being invalidated precisely
> because they raced with pages found already there in the page cache,
> which need to be left in place?
> 

True. What I was trying to do was point out that we usually handle
pages being removed from the page cache with a combination of the page
lock and tree lock. s390 does not have the same type of protection in
page_remove_rmap() when handling PageSwapCache pages.

> So, is there somewhere which is setting page->mapping = NULL, or
> doing ClearPageSwapCache, in a separate block from removing that
> page's entry from the radix_tree?  If there is, then I think it
> could pose a problem on more than s390.
> 
> Hmm, mm/migrate.c.
> 

Migration moves the page mapping under the tree lock so
__set_page_dirty_nobuffers() I don't think that is it.

I think the race is against something like reuse_swap_page() which locks
the page and removes it from swap cache while page_remove_rmap() looks
up the same page.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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