Message-ID: <20230619082330.GA1612447@ik1-406-35019.vs.sakura.ne.jp>
Date:   Mon, 19 Jun 2023 17:23:30 +0900
From:   Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc:     Jiaqi Yan <jiaqiyan@...gle.com>,
        HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) 
        <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
        "songmuchun@...edance.com" <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        "shy828301@...il.com" <shy828301@...il.com>,
        "linmiaohe@...wei.com" <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "duenwen@...gle.com" <duenwen@...gle.com>,
        "axelrasmussen@...gle.com" <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
        "jthoughton@...gle.com" <jthoughton@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] mm/hwpoison: find subpage in hugetlb HWPOISON list

On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 03:59:27PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 06/16/23 19:18, Jiaqi Yan wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:35 PM Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:
> > > On 06/16/23 14:19, Jiaqi Yan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Now looking again this, I think concurrent adding and deleting are
> > > > fine with each other and with themselves, because raw_hwp_list is
> > > > lock-less llist.
> > >
> > > Correct.
> > >
> > > > As for synchronizing traversal with adding and deleting, I wonder is
> > > > it a good idea to make __update_and_free_hugetlb_folio hold
> > > > hugetlb_lock before it folio_clear_hugetlb_hwpoison(which traverse +
> > > > delete raw_hwp_list)? In hugetlb, get_huge_page_for_hwpoison already
> > > > takes hugetlb_lock; it seems to me __update_and_free_hugetlb_folio is
> > > > missing the lock.
> > >
> > > I do not think the lock is needed.  However, while looking more closely
> > > at this I think I discovered another issue.
> > > This is VERY subtle.
> > > Perhaps Naoya can help verify if my reasoning below is correct.
> > >
> > > In __update_and_free_hugetlb_folio we are not operating on a hugetlb page.
> > > Why is this?
> > > Before calling update_and_free_hugetlb_folio we call remove_hugetlb_folio.
> > > The purpose of remove_hugetlb_folio is to remove the huge page from the
> > > list AND compound page destructor indicating this is a hugetlb page is changed.
> > > This is all done while holding the hugetlb lock.  So, the test for
> > > folio_test_hugetlb(folio) is false.
> > >
> > > We have technically a compound non-hugetlb page with a non-null raw_hwp_list.
> > >
> > > Important note: at this time we have not reallocated vmemmap pages if
> > > hugetlb page was vmemmap optimized.  That is done later in
> > > __update_and_free_hugetlb_folio.
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > The 'good news' is that after this point get_huge_page_for_hwpoison will
> > > not recognize this as a hugetlb page, so nothing will be added to the
> > > list.  There is no need to worry about entries being added to the list
> > > during traversal.
> > >
> > > The 'bad news' is that if we get a memory error at this time we will
> > > treat it as a memory error on a regular compound page.  So,
> > > TestSetPageHWPoison(p) in memory_failure() may try to write a read only
> > > struct page. :(
> > 
> > At least I think this is an issue.
> > 
> > Would it help if dissolve_free_huge_page doesn't unlock hugetlb_lock
> > until update_and_free_hugetlb_folio is done, or basically until
> > dissolve_free_huge_page is done?
> 
> Unfortunately, update_and_free_hugetlb_folio is designed to be called
> without locks held.  This is because we can not hold any locks while
> allocating vmemmap pages.
> 
> I'll try to think of some way to restructure the code.  IIUC, this is a
> potential general issue, not just isolated to memory error handling.

Considering this issue as one specific to memory error handling, checking
HPG_vmemmap_optimized in __get_huge_page_for_hwpoison() might be helpful to
detect the race.  Then, an idea like the below diff (not tested) can make
try_memory_failure_hugetlb() retry (with retaking hugetlb_lock) to wait
for complete the allocation of vmemmap pages.

@@ -1938,8 +1938,11 @@ int __get_huge_page_for_hwpoison(unsigned long pfn, int flags,
        int ret = 2;    /* fallback to normal page handling */
        bool count_increased = false;

-       if (!folio_test_hugetlb(folio))
+       if (!folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) {
+               if (folio_test_hugetlb_vmemmap_optimized(folio))
+                       ret = -EBUSY;
                goto out;
+       }

        if (flags & MF_COUNT_INCREASED) {
                ret = 1;


Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi

> -- 
> Mike Kravetz
> 
> > 
> > TestSetPageHWPoison in memory_failure is called after
> > try_memory_failure_hugetlb, and folio_test_hugetlb is tested within
> > __get_huge_page_for_hwpoison, which is wrapped by the hugetlb_lock. So
> > by the time dissolve_free_huge_page returns, subpages already go
> > through hugetlb_vmemmap_restore and __destroy_compound_gigantic_folio
> > and become non-compound raw pages (folios). Now
> > folio_test_hugetlb(p)=false will be correct for memory_failure, and it
> > can recover p as a dissolved non-hugetlb page.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists