linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] mm/page_alloc: Batch page freeing in free_frozen_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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <689e36d4-d828-42c5-9e57-ba663adc9ea9@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 12:04:50 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@...il.com>,
 kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc: oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev, lkp@...el.com, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
 Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Kiryl Shutsemau <kirill@...temov.name>, Brendan Jackman
 <jackmanb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] mm/page_alloc: Batch page freeing in
 free_frozen_page_commit

On 9/29/25 5:17 PM, Joshua Hahn wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 13:17:37 +0800 kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello Kernel Test Robot,
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> kernel test robot noticed "WARNING:bad_unlock_balance_detected" on:
>>
>> commit: 7e86100bfb0d65a17f3228a9af4c2a49ac38f057 ("[PATCH v2 4/4] mm/page_alloc: Batch page freeing in free_frozen_page_commit")
>> url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Joshua-Hahn/mm-page_alloc-vmstat-Simplify-refresh_cpu_vm_stats-change-detection/20250925-044532
>> patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250924204409.1706524-5-joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com/
>> patch subject: [PATCH v2 4/4] mm/page_alloc: Batch page freeing in free_frozen_page_commit
>>
>> in testcase: trinity
>> version: 
>> with following parameters:
>>
>> 	runtime: 300s
>> 	group: group-03
>> 	nr_groups: 5
>>
>> config: x86_64-randconfig-161-20250927
>> compiler: gcc-14
>> test machine: qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -cpu SandyBridge -smp 2 -m 16G
>>
>> (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace)
>>
>> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
>> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
>> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
>> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202509281204.3086f707-lkp@intel.com
>>
>>
>> [  414.880298][ T7549] WARNING: bad unlock balance detected!
>> [  414.881071][ T7549] 6.17.0-rc6-00147-g7e86100bfb0d #1 Not tainted
>> [  414.881924][ T7549] -------------------------------------
>> [  414.882695][ T7549] date/7549 is trying to release lock (&pcp->lock) at:
>> [ 414.883649][ T7549] free_frozen_page_commit+0x425/0x9d0 
>> [  414.884764][ T7549] but there are no more locks to release!
>> [  414.885539][ T7549]
>> [  414.885539][ T7549] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [  414.886704][ T7549] 2 locks held by date/7549:
>> [ 414.887353][ T7549] #0: ffff888104f29940 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{4:4}, at: exit_mmap (include/linux/seqlock.h:431 include/linux/mmap_lock.h:88 include/linux/mmap_lock.h:398 mm/mmap.c:1288) 
>> [ 414.888591][ T7549] #1: ffff8883ae40e858 (&pcp->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: free_frozen_page_commit+0x46a/0x9d0 
> 
> So based on this, it seems like I must have overlooked a pretty important
> consideration here. When I unlock the pcp, it allows both the zone and pcp
> lock to be picked up by another task (pcp lock less likely), but it also
> means that this process can be migrated to a different CPU, where it will
> be trying to unlock & acquire a completely different pcp.

Yes.

> For me the most simple solution looks to be migrate_disable() and
> migrate_enable() in the function to ensure that this task is bound to the
> CPU it originally started runing on.
> 
> I'm not sure how this will affect performance, but I think in terms of

It is somewhat expensive, I'd rather avoid if possible.

> desired behavior it does seem like this is the correct way to do it.

I'd rather detect this happened (new pcp doesn't match old pcp after a
relock) and either give up (should be rare enough hopefully so won't
cause much imbalance) or recalculate how much to free on the other cpu
and continue there (probably subtract how much we already did so we
don't end up unlucky flushing all kinds of cpus "forever").

> Joshua