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]

Message-ID: <56EDCE8C.8030607@suse.cz>
Date:	Sat, 19 Mar 2016 23:11:24 +0100
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
Cc:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	"Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
	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>,
	dingtinahong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>, chenjie6@...wei.com,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Suspicious error for CMA stress test

On 03/19/2016 08:24 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2016/3/18 22:10, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh, ok, will try to send proper patch, once I figure out what to write in
>>>> the changelog :)
>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>
>> OK, here it is. Hanjun can you please retest this, as I'm not sure if you had
>
> I tested this new patch with stress for more than one hour, and it works!

That's good news, thanks!

> Since Lucas has comments on it, I'm willing to test further versions if needed.
>
> One minor comments below,
>
>> the same code due to the followup one-liner patches in the thread. Lucas, see if
>> it helps with your issue as well. Laura and Joonsoo, please also test and review
>> and check changelog if my perception of the problem is accurate :)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
> [...]
>> +	if (max_order < MAX_ORDER) {
>> +		/* If we are here, it means order is >= pageblock_order.
>> +		 * We want to prevent merge between freepages on isolate
>> +		 * pageblock and normal pageblock. Without this, pageblock
>> +		 * isolation could cause incorrect freepage or CMA accounting.
>> +		 *
>> +		 * We don't want to hit this code for the more frequent
>> +		 * low-order merging.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (unlikely(has_isolate_pageblock(zone))) {
>
> In the first version of your patch, it's
>
> +		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA) &&
> +				unlikely(has_isolate_pageblock(zone))) {
>
> Why remove the IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA) in the new version?

Previously I thought the problem was CMA-specific, but after more detailed look 
I think it's not, as start_isolate_page_range() releases zone lock between 
pageblocks, so unexpected merging due to races can happen also between isolated 
and non-isolated non-CMA pageblocks. This function is called from memory hotplug 
code, and recently also alloc_contig_range() itself is outside CONFIG_CMA for 
allocating gigantic hugepages. Joonsoo's original commit 3c60509 was also not 
restricted to CMA, and same with his patch earlier in this thread.

Hmm I guess another alternate solution would indeed be to modify 
start_isolate_page_range() and undo_isolate_page_range() to hold zone->lock 
across MAX_ORDER blocks (not whole requested range, as that could lead to 
hardlockups). But that still wouldn't help Lucas, IUUC.


> Thanks
> Hanjun
>
>