Message-ID: <yt9dr10ok3lm.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 06 Sep 2022 15:57:25 +0200
From:   Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@...cle.com>,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
        Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
        Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
        Ray Fucillo <Ray.Fucillo@...ersystems.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] hugetlb: handle truncate racing with page faults

Hi Mike,

Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> writes:

> When page fault code needs to allocate and instantiate a new hugetlb
> page (huegtlb_no_page), it checks early to determine if the fault is
> beyond i_size.  When discovered early, it is easy to abort the fault and
> return an error.  However, it becomes much more difficult to handle when
> discovered later after allocating the page and consuming reservations
> and adding to the page cache.  Backing out changes in such instances
> becomes difficult and error prone.
>
> Instead of trying to catch and backout all such races, use the hugetlb
> fault mutex to handle truncate racing with page faults.  The most
> significant change is modification of the routine remove_inode_hugepages
> such that it will take the fault mutex for EVERY index in the truncated
> range (or hole in the case of hole punch).  Since remove_inode_hugepages
> is called in the truncate path after updating i_size, we can experience
> races as follows.
> - truncate code updates i_size and takes fault mutex before a racing
>   fault.  After fault code takes mutex, it will notice fault beyond
>   i_size and abort early.
> - fault code obtains mutex, and truncate updates i_size after early
>   checks in fault code.  fault code will add page beyond i_size.
>   When truncate code takes mutex for page/index, it will remove the
>   page.
> - truncate updates i_size, but fault code obtains mutex first.  If
>   fault code sees updated i_size it will abort early.  If fault code
>   does not see updated i_size, it will add page beyond i_size and
>   truncate code will remove page when it obtains fault mutex.
>
> Note, for performance reasons remove_inode_hugepages will still use
> filemap_get_folios for bulk folio lookups.  For indicies not returned in
> the bulk lookup, it will need to lookup individual folios to check for
> races with page fault.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
> ---
>  fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 184 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  mm/hugetlb.c         |  41 +++++-----
>  2 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-)

With linux next starting from next-20220831 i see hangs with this
patch applied while running the glibc test suite. The patch doesn't
revert cleanly on top, so i checked out one commit before that one and
with that revision everything works.

It looks like the malloc test suite in glibc triggers this. I cannot
identify a single test causing it, but instead the combination of
multiple tests. Running the test suite on a single CPU works. Given the
subject of the patch that's likely not a surprise.

This is on s390, and the warning i get from RCU is:

[ 1951.906997] rcu: INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU
[ 1951.907009] rcu:     60-....: (6000 ticks this GP) idle=968c/1/0x4000000000000000 softirq=43971/43972 fqs=2765
[ 1951.907018]  (t=6000 jiffies g=116125 q=1008072 ncpus=64)
[ 1951.907024] CPU: 60 PID: 1236661 Comm: ld64.so.1 Not tainted 6.0.0-rc3-next-20220901 #340
[ 1951.907027] Hardware name: IBM 3906 M04 704 (z/VM 7.1.0)
[ 1951.907029] Krnl PSW : 0704e00180000000 00000000003d9042 (hugetlb_fault_mutex_hash+0x2a/0xd8)
[ 1951.907044]            R:0 T:1 IO:1 EX:1 Key:0 M:1 W:0 P:0 AS:3 CC:2 PM:0 RI:0 EA:3
[ 1951.907095] Call Trace:
[ 1951.907098]  [<00000000003d9042>] hugetlb_fault_mutex_hash+0x2a/0xd8
[ 1951.907101] ([<00000000005845a6>] fault_lock_inode_indicies+0x8e/0x128)
[ 1951.907107]  [<0000000000584876>] remove_inode_hugepages+0x236/0x280
[ 1951.907109]  [<0000000000584a7c>] hugetlbfs_evict_inode+0x3c/0x60
[ 1951.907111]  [<000000000044fe96>] evict+0xe6/0x1c0
[ 1951.907116]  [<000000000044a608>] __dentry_kill+0x108/0x1e0
[ 1951.907119]  [<000000000044ac64>] dentry_kill+0x6c/0x290
[ 1951.907121]  [<000000000044afec>] dput+0x164/0x1c0
[ 1951.907123]  [<000000000042a4d6>] __fput+0xee/0x290
[ 1951.907127]  [<00000000001794a8>] task_work_run+0x88/0xe0
[ 1951.907133]  [<00000000001f77a0>] exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1a0/0x1a8
[ 1951.907137]  [<0000000000d0e42e>] __do_syscall+0x11e/0x200
[ 1951.907142]  [<0000000000d1d392>] system_call+0x82/0xb0
[ 1951.907145] Last Breaking-Event-Address:
[ 1951.907146]  [<0000038001d839c0>] 0x38001d839c0

One of the hanging test cases is usually malloc/tst-malloc-too-large-malloc-hugetlb2.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Sven

Powered by blists - more mailing lists