linux-kernel - Re: Suspicious error for CMA stress test

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 4 Mar 2016 15:35:26 +0800
From:	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
To:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
CC:	Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
	qiuxishi <qiuxishi@...wei.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"thunder.leizhen@...wei.com" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
	dingtinahong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>, <chenjie6@...wei.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Suspicious error for CMA stress test

On 2016/3/4 14:38, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 02:05:09PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2016/3/4 12:32, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:02:33AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 08:49:01PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>> On 2016/3/3 15:42, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>>>>> 2016-03-03 10:25 GMT+09:00 Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>:
>>>>>>> (cc -mm and Joonsoo Kim)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03/02/2016 05:52 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I came across a suspicious error for CMA stress test:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Before the test, I got:
>>>>>>>> -bash-4.3# cat /proc/meminfo | grep Cma
>>>>>>>> CmaTotal:         204800 kB
>>>>>>>> CmaFree:          195044 kB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After running the test:
>>>>>>>> -bash-4.3# cat /proc/meminfo | grep Cma
>>>>>>>> CmaTotal:         204800 kB
>>>>>>>> CmaFree:         6602584 kB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the freed CMA memory is more than total..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also the the MemFree is more than mem total:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -bash-4.3# cat /proc/meminfo
>>>>>>>> MemTotal:       16342016 kB
>>>>>>>> MemFree:        22367268 kB
>>>>>>>> MemAvailable:   22370528 kB
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> I played with this a bit and can see the same problem. The sanity
>>>>>>> check of CmaFree < CmaTotal generally triggers in
>>>>>>> __move_zone_freepage_state in unset_migratetype_isolate.
>>>>>>> This also seems to be present as far back as v4.0 which was the
>>>>>>> first version to have the updated accounting from Joonsoo.
>>>>>>> Were there known limitations with the new freepage accounting,
>>>>>>> Joonsoo?
>>>>>> I don't know. I also played with this and looks like there is
>>>>>> accounting problem, however, for my case, number of free page is slightly less
>>>>>> than total. I will take a look.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hanjun, could you tell me your malloc_size? I tested with 1 and it doesn't
>>>>>> look like your case.
>>>>> I tested with malloc_size with 2M, and it grows much bigger than 1M, also I
>>>>> did some other test:
>>>> Thanks! Now, I can re-generate erronous situation you mentioned.
>>>>
>>>>>  - run with single thread with 100000 times, everything is fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>  - I hack the cam_alloc() and free as below [1] to see if it's lock issue, with
>>>>>    the same test with 100 multi-thread, then I got:
>>>> [1] would not be sufficient to close this race.
>>>>
>>>> Try following things [A]. And, for more accurate test, I changed code a bit more
>>>> to prevent kernel page allocation from cma area [B]. This will prevent kernel
>>>> page allocation from cma area completely so we can focus cma_alloc/release race.
>>>>
>>>> Although, this is not correct fix, it could help that we can guess
>>>> where the problem is.
>>> More correct fix is something like below.
>>> Please test it.
>> Hmm, this is not working:
> Sad to hear that.
>
> Could you tell me your system's MAX_ORDER and pageblock_order?
>

MAX_ORDER is 11, pageblock_order is 9, thanks for your help!

Hanjun