[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170522131215.wrnklp4dtemntixz@node.shutemov.name>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 16:12:15 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: pgds getting out of sync after memory hot remove
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 02:01:26PM -0400, Jérôme Glisse wrote:
> After memory hot remove it seems we do not synchronize pgds for kernel
> virtual memory range (on vmemmap_free()). This seems bogus to me as it
> means we are left with stall entry for process with mm != mm_init
>
> Yet i am puzzle by the fact that i am only now hitting this issue. It
> never was an issue with 4.12 or before ie HMM never triggered following
> BUG_ON inside sync_global_pgds():
>
> if (!p4d_none(*p4d_ref) && !p4d_none(*p4d))
> BUG_ON(p4d_page_vaddr(*p4d) != p4d_page_vaddr(*p4d_ref));
>
>
> It seems that Kirill 5 level page table changes play a role in this
> behavior change. I could not bisect because HMM is painfull to rebase
> for each bisection step so that is just my best guess.
>
>
> Am i missing something here ? Am i wrong in assuming that should sync
> pgd on vmemmap_free() ? If so anyone have a good guess on why i am now
> seeing the above BUG_ON ?
What would we gain by syncing pgd on free? Stale pgds are fine as long as
they are not referenced (use-after-free case). Syncing is addtional work.
See af2cf278ef4f ("x86/mm/hotplug: Don't remove PGD entries in remove_pagetable()")
and 5372e155a28f ("x86/mm: Drop unused argument 'removed' from sync_global_pgds()").
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists