[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230506030140.GC3281499@google.com>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2023 12:01:40 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, minchan@...nel.org,
ngupta@...are.org, senozhatsky@...omium.org, sjenning@...hat.com,
ddstreet@...e.org, vitaly.wool@...sulko.com, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: move LRU update from zs_map_object() to
zs_malloc()
On (23/05/05 11:50), Nhat Pham wrote:
> Under memory pressure, we sometimes observe the following crash:
>
> [ 5694.832838] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 5694.842093] list_del corruption, ffff888014b6a448->next is LIST_POISON1 (dead000000000100)
> [ 5694.858677] WARNING: CPU: 33 PID: 418824 at lib/list_debug.c:47 __list_del_entry_valid+0x42/0x80
> [ 5694.961820] CPU: 33 PID: 418824 Comm: fuse_counters.s Kdump: loaded Tainted: G S 5.19.0-0_fbk3_rc3_hoangnhatpzsdynshrv41_10870_g85a9558a25de #1
> [ 5694.990194] Hardware name: Wiwynn Twin Lakes MP/Twin Lakes Passive MP, BIOS YMM16 05/24/2021
> [ 5695.007072] RIP: 0010:__list_del_entry_valid+0x42/0x80
> [ 5695.017351] Code: 08 48 83 c2 22 48 39 d0 74 24 48 8b 10 48 39 f2 75 2c 48 8b 51 08 b0 01 48 39 f2 75 34 c3 48 c7 c7 55 d7 78 82 e8 4e 45 3b 00 <0f> 0b eb 31 48 c7 c7 27 a8 70 82 e8 3e 45 3b 00 0f 0b eb 21 48 c7
> [ 5695.054919] RSP: 0018:ffffc90027aef4f0 EFLAGS: 00010246
> [ 5695.065366] RAX: 41fe484987275300 RBX: ffff888008988180 RCX: 0000000000000000
> [ 5695.079636] RDX: ffff88886006c280 RSI: ffff888860060480 RDI: ffff888860060480
> [ 5695.093904] RBP: 0000000000000002 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffc90027aef370
> [ 5695.108175] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: ffffffff82fdf1c0 R12: 0000000010000002
> [ 5695.122447] R13: ffff888014b6a448 R14: ffff888014b6a420 R15: 00000000138dc240
> [ 5695.136717] FS: 00007f23a7d3f740(0000) GS:ffff888860040000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [ 5695.152899] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [ 5695.164388] CR2: 0000560ceaab6ac0 CR3: 000000001c06c001 CR4: 00000000007706e0
> [ 5695.178659] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> [ 5695.192927] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> [ 5695.207197] PKRU: 55555554
> [ 5695.212602] Call Trace:
> [ 5695.217486] <TASK>
> [ 5695.221674] zs_map_object+0x91/0x270
> [ 5695.229000] zswap_frontswap_store+0x33d/0x870
> [ 5695.237885] ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x5d/0xa0
> [ 5695.245899] __frontswap_store+0x51/0xb0
> [ 5695.253742] swap_writepage+0x3c/0x60
> [ 5695.261063] shrink_page_list+0x738/0x1230
> [ 5695.269255] shrink_lruvec+0x5ec/0xcd0
> [ 5695.276749] ? shrink_slab+0x187/0x5f0
> [ 5695.284240] ? mem_cgroup_iter+0x6e/0x120
> [ 5695.292255] shrink_node+0x293/0x7b0
> [ 5695.299402] do_try_to_free_pages+0xea/0x550
> [ 5695.307940] try_to_free_pages+0x19a/0x490
> [ 5695.316126] __folio_alloc+0x19ff/0x3e40
> [ 5695.323971] ? __filemap_get_folio+0x8a/0x4e0
> [ 5695.332681] ? walk_component+0x2a8/0xb50
> [ 5695.340697] ? generic_permission+0xda/0x2a0
> [ 5695.349231] ? __filemap_get_folio+0x8a/0x4e0
> [ 5695.357940] ? walk_component+0x2a8/0xb50
> [ 5695.365955] vma_alloc_folio+0x10e/0x570
> [ 5695.373796] ? walk_component+0x52/0xb50
> [ 5695.381634] wp_page_copy+0x38c/0xc10
> [ 5695.388953] ? filename_lookup+0x378/0xbc0
> [ 5695.397140] handle_mm_fault+0x87f/0x1800
> [ 5695.405157] do_user_addr_fault+0x1bd/0x570
> [ 5695.413520] exc_page_fault+0x5d/0x110
> [ 5695.421017] asm_exc_page_fault+0x22/0x30
>
> After some investigation, I have found the following issue: unlike other
> zswap backends, zsmalloc performs the LRU list update at the object
> mapping time, rather than when the slot for the object is allocated.
> This deviation was discussed and agreed upon during the review process
> of the zsmalloc writeback patch series:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y3flcAXNxxrvy3ZH@cmpxchg.org/
>
> Unfortunately, this introduces a subtle bug that occurs when there is a
> concurrent store and reclaim, which interleave as follows:
>
> zswap_frontswap_store() shrink_worker()
> zs_malloc() zs_zpool_shrink()
> spin_lock(&pool->lock) zs_reclaim_page()
> zspage = find_get_zspage()
> spin_unlock(&pool->lock)
> spin_lock(&pool->lock)
> zspage = list_first_entry(&pool->lru)
> list_del(&zspage->lru)
> zspage->lru.next = LIST_POISON1
> zspage->lru.prev = LIST_POISON2
Will list_del_init() there do the trick?
> spin_unlock(&pool->lock)
> zs_map_object()
> spin_lock(&pool->lock)
> if (!list_empty(&zspage->lru))
> list_del(&zspage->lru)
list_del_init()
> CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next == LIST_POISON1) /* BOOM */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists