linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/page_alloc: add scheduling point to free_unref_page

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: <aab854b3-d9fd-3454-c06b-01ff441dec08@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 8 Mar 2022 17:04:59 +0100
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        wangjianxing <wangjianxing@...ngson.cn>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/page_alloc: add scheduling point to
 free_unref_page_list

On 3/3/22 00:34, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue,  1 Mar 2022 20:38:25 -0500 wangjianxing <wangjianxing@...ngson.cn> wrote:
> 
>> free a large list of pages maybe cause rcu_sched starved on
>> non-preemptible kernels
>>
>> rcu: rcu_sched kthread starved for 5359 jiffies! g454793 f0x0
>> RCU_GP_WAIT_FQS(5) ->state=0x0 ->cpu=19
>> [...]
>> Call Trace:
>>   free_unref_page_list+0x19c/0x270
>>   release_pages+0x3cc/0x498
>>   tlb_flush_mmu_free+0x44/0x70
>>   zap_pte_range+0x450/0x738
>>   unmap_page_range+0x108/0x240
>>   unmap_vmas+0x74/0xf0
>>   unmap_region+0xb0/0x120
>>   do_munmap+0x264/0x438
>>   vm_munmap+0x58/0xa0
>>   sys_munmap+0x10/0x20
>>   syscall_common+0x24/0x38
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> How did this large list of pages come about?

Looks like it came from TLB batching. But I got lost in the maze of it
trying to figure out how large the batch can grow.

> Will people be seeing this message in upstream kernels, or is it
> specific to some caller code which you have added?
> 
> Please always include details such as this so that others can determine
> whether the fix should be backported into -stable kernels.
> 
>