Message-ID: <CACjP9X9Fbfh2geGWefgv4_UbRFurWeugcBzcLmNVQnmqpZSwfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:42:57 +0100
From:   Daniel Vacek <neelx@...hat.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...tec.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm/page_alloc: fix memmap_init_zone pageblock alignment"

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 7:39 AM, Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 15 March 2018 at 02:32, Daniel Vacek <neelx@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
>> <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
>>> On 14 March 2018 at 16:41, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>> On 14 March 2018 at 15:54, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 14 March 2018 at 14:54, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed 14-03-18 14:35:12, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14 March 2018 at 14:13, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> > Does http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180313224240.25295-1-neelx@redhat.com
>>>>>>> > fix your issue? From the debugging info you provided it should because
>>>>>>> > the patch prevents jumping backwards.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The patch does fix the boot hang.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I am concerned that we are papering over a fundamental flaw in
>>>>>>> memblock_next_valid_pfn().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems that memblock_next_valid_pfn is doing the right thing here. It
>>>>>> is the alignment which moves the pfn back AFAICS. I am not really
>>>>>> impressed about the original patch either, to be completely honest.
>>>>>> It just looks awfully tricky. I still didn't manage to wrap my head
>>>>>> around the original issue though so I do not have much better ideas to
>>>>>> be honest.
>>>>>
>>>>> So first of all, memblock_next_valid_pfn() never refers to its max_pfn
>>>>> argument, which is odd nut easily fixed.
>>>>> Then, the whole idea of substracting one so that the pfn++ will
>>>>> produce the expected value is rather hacky,
>>>>>
>>>>> But the real problem is that rounding down pfn for the next iteration
>>>>> is dodgy, because early_pfn_valid() isn't guaranteed to return true
>>>>> for the rounded down value. I know it is probably fine in reality, but
>>>>> dodgy as hell. The same applies to the call to early_pfn_in_nid() btw
>>>>>
>>>>> So how about something like this (apologies on Gmail's behalf for the
>>>>> whitespace damage, I can resend it as a proper patch)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------8<-----------
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>>>> index 3d974cb2a1a1..b89ca999ee3b 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>>>> @@ -5352,28 +5352,29 @@
>>>>>                  * function.  They do not exist on hotplugged memory.
>>>>>                  */
>>>>>                 if (context != MEMMAP_EARLY)
>>>>>                         goto not_early;
>>>>>
>>>>> -               if (!early_pfn_valid(pfn)) {
>>>>> +               if (!early_pfn_valid(pfn) || !early_pfn_in_nid(pfn, nid)) {
>>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP
>>>>>                         /*
>>>>>                          * Skip to the pfn preceding the next valid one (or
>>>>>                          * end_pfn), such that we hit a valid pfn (or end_pfn)
>>>>>                          * on our next iteration of the loop. Note that it needs
>>>>>                          * to be pageblock aligned even when the region itself
>>>>>                          * is not. move_freepages_block() can shift ahead of
>>>>>                          * the valid region but still depends on correct page
>>>>>                          * metadata.
>>>>>                          */
>>>>> -                       pfn = (memblock_next_valid_pfn(pfn, end_pfn) &
>>>>> -                                       ~(pageblock_nr_pages-1)) - 1;
>>>>> -#endif
>>>>> +                       pfn = memblock_next_valid_pfn(pfn, end_pfn);
>>>>> +                       if (pfn >= end_pfn)
>>>>> +                               break;
>>>>> +                       pfn &= ~(pageblock_nr_pages - 1);
>>>>> +#else
>>>>>                         continue;
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>                 }
>>>>> -               if (!early_pfn_in_nid(pfn, nid))
>>>>> -                       continue;
>>>>>                 if (!update_defer_init(pgdat, pfn, end_pfn, &nr_initialised))
>>>>>                         break;
>>>>>
>>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP
>>>>>                 /*
>>>>> ---------8<-----------
>>>>>
>>>>> This ensures that we enter the remainder of the loop with a properly
>>>>> aligned pfn, rather than tweaking the value of pfn so it assumes the
>>>>> expected value after 'pfn++'
>>>>
>>>> Um, this does not actually solve the issue. I guess this is due to the
>>>> fact that a single pageblock size chunk could have both valid and
>>>> invalid PFNs, and so rounding down the first PFN of the second valid
>>>> chunk moves you back to the first chunk.
>>>
>>> OK, so the original patch attempted to ensure that of each pageblock,
>>> at least the first struct page gets initialized, even though the PFN
>>> may not be valid. Unfortunately, this code is not complete, given that
>>> start_pfn itself may be misaligned, and so the issue it attempts to
>>> solve may still occur.
>>
>> You're wrong here.
>>
>
> You only align down after encountering an invalid PFN. If start_pfn
> itself is not pageblock aligned, how do you initialize the first
> struct page of the pageblock?
>
>>> Then, I think it is absolutely dodgy to settle for only initializing
>>> the first struct page, rather than all of them, only because a
>>> specific VM_BUG_ON() references the flag field of the first struct
>>> page.
>>> IMO, we should fix this by initializing all struct page entries for
>>> each pageblock sized chunk that has any valid PFNs.
>>
>> That's precisely what my patch does. At least with
>> CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID disabled. And it looks only arm implements
>> arch pfn_valid() which I was not testing with and I am not sure it's
>> correct. Check my other email
>>
>
> No, your patch only initializes the first struct page of a pageblock.
> If the next one is invalid, we will skip to the next valid one.

I believe you're pretty puzzled here.

> You are making the assumption that pfn_valid() will return true for
> all pages in a pageblock if it returns true for one of them, and this
> does not hold on other architectures.

It does. At least the generic version defined in
include/linux/mmzone.h. And this seems to be used by all arches but
arm with CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID. With that config disabled I guess
even arm behaves the same. Though I could be wrong.

--nX

Powered by blists - more mailing lists