Date:   Thu, 13 Jul 2023 03:29:13 +0000
From:   John Hsu (許永翰) <John.Hsu@...iatek.com>
To:     "Liam.Howlett@...cle.com" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
CC:     Andrew Yang (楊智強) 
        <Andrew.Yang@...iatek.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Qun-wei Lin (林群崴) 
        <Qun-wei.Lin@...iatek.com>,
        "surenb@...gle.com" <surenb@...gle.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Chinwen Chang (張錦文) 
        <chinwen.chang@...iatek.com>,
        Kuan-Ying Lee (李冠穎) 
        <Kuan-Ying.Lee@...iatek.com>,
        Casper Li (李中榮) <casper.li@...iatek.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "yuzhao@...gle.com" <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        "maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org" <maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org>,
        John Hsu (許永翰) <John.Hsu@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] trigger BUG_ON in mas_store_prealloc when low memory

On Thu, 2023-07-13 at 11:25 +0800, John Hsu wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-07-10 at 10:24 -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> >  	 
> > External email : Please do not click links or open attachments
> > until
> > you have verified the sender or the content.
> >  * John Hsu (許永翰) <John.Hsu@...iatek.com> [230710 08:50]:
> > ...
> > 
> > > > > > > This BUG_ON() is necessary since this function should
> > 
> > _never_
> > > > run
> > > > > > out of
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > memory; this function does not return an error code.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > mas_preallocate()
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > should have gotten you the memory necessary (or returned
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -ENOMEM)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > prior to the call to mas_store_prealloc(), so this is
> > 
> > probably
> > > > an
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > internal tree problem.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > There is a tree operation being performed here.  mprotect
> > 
> > is
> > > > > > merging a
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > vma by the looks of the call stack.  Why do you think no
> > 
> > tree
> > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > is necessary?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > As you mentioned, mas_preallocate() should allocate
> > > > > > > enough
> > > > 
> > > > node,
> > > > > > but there is such functions mas_node_count() in
> > > > 
> > > > mas_store_prealloc().
> > > > > > > In mas_node_count() checks whether the *mas* has enough
> > 
> > nodes,
> > > > and
> > > > > > allocate memory for node if there was no enough nodes in
> > > > > > mas.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Right, we call mas_node_count() so that both code paths are
> > 
> > used
> > > > for
> > > > > > preallocations and regular mas_store()/mas_store_gfp().  It
> > > > 
> > > > shouldn't
> > > > > > take a significant amount of time to verify there is enough
> > > > 
> > > > nodes.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yap..., it didn't take a significant amount of time to verify
> > > > 
> > > > whether
> > > > > there is enough nodes. The problem is why the flow in
> > > > 
> > > > mas_node_count
> > > > > will alloc nodes if there was no enough nodes in mas?
> > > > 
> > > > What I meant is that both methods use the same call path
> > > > because
> > > > there
> > > > is not a reason to duplicate the path.  After mas_preallocate()
> > 
> > has
> > > > allocated the nodes needed, the call to check if there is
> > > > enough
> > > > nodes
> > > > will be quick.
> > > 
> > > So whether the purpose of mas_preallocate() is decreasing the
> > > lock
> > > retention time?
> > 
> > It could be, but in this case it's the locking order.  We have to
> > pre-allocate and fail early if we are out of memory, because we
> > _cannot_
> > use GFP_KERNEL where we call
> > mas_store_prealloc().  mas_preallocate()
> > will use GFP_KERENL though.  We cannot use GFP_KERNEL during the
> > store
> > because reclaim may sleep and we cannot sleep holding the locks we
> > need
> > to hold at the time of the store operation in __vma_adjust().
> > 
> 
> Yap, if the type of lock is spinlock, the flow shouldn't sleep in the
> critical sections. mmap_lock is implmented by rw_semaphore(mutex). Is
> there any other lock in this section?
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > I think that if mas_preallocate() allocate enough node,
> > > > > > > why
> > 
> > we
> > > > > > check the node count and allocate nodes if there was no
> > 
> > enough
> > > > nodes
> > > > > > in mas in mas_node_count()?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We check for the above reason.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > OK..., this is one of the root cause of this BUG.
> > > > 
> > > > The root cause is that there was not enough memory for a store
> > > > operation.  Regardless of if we check the allocations in the
> > > > mas_store_prealloc() path or not, this would fail.  If we
> > > > remove
> > 
> > the
> > > > check for nodes within this path, then we would have to
> > > > BUG_ON()
> > 
> > when
> > > > we
> > > > run out of nodes to use or have a null pointer dereference BUG
> > > > anyways.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Yap, the root cause is oom. The BUG_ON() for the situations that
> > 
> > the
> > > maple tree struct cannot be maintained because of the lack of
> > 
> > memory is
> > > necessary. But the the buddy system in linux kernel can reclaim
> > 
> > memory
> > > when the system is under the low memory status. If we use
> > 
> > GFP_KERNEL
> > > after trying GFP_NOWAIT to allocate node, maybe we can get enough
> > > memory when the second try with GFP_KERNEL. 
> > 
> > Right, but the GFP_KERNEL cannot be used when holding certain locks
> > because it may sleep.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > We have seen that there may be some maple_tree operations
> > 
> > in
> > > > > > merge_vma...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If merge_vma() does anything, then there was an operation
> > > > > > to
> > 
> > the
> > > > > > maple
> > > > > > tree.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Moreover, would maple_tree provides an API for assigning
> > 
> > user's
> > > > gfp
> > > > > > flag for allocating node?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > mas_preallocate() and mas_store_gfp() has gfp flags as an
> > > > > > argument.  In
> > > > > > your call stack, it will be called in __vma_adjust() as
> > > > > > such:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > if (mas_preallocate(&mas, vma, GFP_KERNEL))
> > > > > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > line 715 in v6.1.25
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > In rb_tree, we allocate vma_area_struct (rb_node is in
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > struct.) with GFP_KERNEL, and maple_tree allocate node with
> > > > > > GFP_NOWAIT and __GFP_NOWARN.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We use GFP_KERNEL as I explained above for the VMA tree.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Got it! But the mas_node_count() always use GFP_NOWAIT and
> > > > 
> > > > __GFP_NOWARN
> > > > > in inserting tree flow. Do you consider the performance of
> > > > 
> > > > maintaining
> > > > > the structure of maple_tree?
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by 'consider the
> > 
> > performance
> > > > of
> > > > maintaining the structure of maple_tree'.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > As I mentioned above, GFP_NOWAIT will not allow buddy system for
> > > reclaiming memory, so "Do you consider the performance of
> > 
> > maintaining
> > > the structure of maple_tree" means that: whether the
> > 
> > mas_node_count()
> > > path is not allowed to reclaim or compact memory for the
> > 
> > performance.
> > 
> > Ah, no.  This is not for performance.  It was initially on the road
> > map
> > for performance, but it was needed for the complicated locking in
> > the
> > MM
> > code.
> > 
> > rb tree embedded the nodes in the VMA which is allocated outside
> > this
> > critical section and so it could use GFP_KERNEL.
> > 
> 
> As I know, following is rb_tree flow in 5.15.186:
> 
> ...
> mmap_write_lock_killable(mm)
> ...
> do_mmap()
> ...
> mmap_region()
> ...
> vm_area_alloc(mm)
> ...
> mmap_write_unlock(mm)
> 
> vm_area_alloc is in the mmap_lock hoding period.
> It seems that the flow would sleep here in rb_tree flow.
> If I miss anything, please tell me, thanks!
> 
> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > It also will drop the lock and retry with GFP_KERNEL on
> > 
> > failure
> > > > > > when not using the external lock.  The mmap_lock is
> > 
> > configured as
> > > > an
> > > > > > external lock.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Allocation will not wait for reclaiming and compacting
> > > > > > > when
> > > > 
> > > > there
> > > > > > is no enough available memory.
> > > > > > > Is there any concern for this design?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This has been addressed above, but let me know if I missed
> > > > 
> > > > anything
> > > > > > here.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think that the mas_node_count() has higher rate of
> > > > > triggering
> > > > > BUG_ON() when allocating nodes with GFP_NOWAIT and
> > 
> > __GFP_NOWARN. If
> > > > > mas_node_count() use GFP_KERNEL as mas_preallocate() in the
> > 
> > mmap.c,
> > > > the
> > > > > allocation fail rate may be lower than use GFP_NOWAIT.
> > > > 
> > > > Which BUG_ON() are you referring to?
> > > > 
> > > > If I was to separate the code path for mas_store_prealloc() and
> > > > mas_store_gfp(), then a BUG_ON() would still need to exist and
> > 
> > still
> > > > would have been triggered..  We are in a place in the code
> > > > where
> > 
> > we
> > > > should never sleep and we don't have enough memory allocated to
> > 
> > do
> > > > what
> > > > was necessary.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Yap. There is no reason to seprate mas_store_prealloc() and
> > > mas_store_gfp. Is it possible to retry to allocate mas_node with
> > > GFP_KERNEL (wait for system reclaim and compact) instead of
> > 
> > triggering
> > > BUG_ON once the GFP_NOWAIT allocation failed?
> > 
> > Unfortunately not, no.  In some cases it may actually work out that
> > the
> > VMA may not need the locks in question, but it cannot be
> > generalized
> > for
> > __vma_adjust().  Where I am able, I use the mas_store_gfp() calls
> > so
> > we
> > can let reclaim and compact run, but it's not possible here.
> > 
> 
> We have used GFP_KERNEL as alloc flag in mas_node_count flow about 2
> months. The mentioned problem we mentioned in the first mail didn't
> reproduce under high stress stability test.
> 
> I have seen the patch provided by you. I will verify this patch in
> our
> stability test. But there is a problem, if maple_tree behavior is
> unexpected (e.g. redundant write bug this time). We can only review
> the
> whole mm flow to find out the wrong behavior. Do we have an efficient
> debug method for maple tree?
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Liam
Best Regards,
John Hsu

Powered by blists - more mailing lists