Message-ID: <aUuPk6fj1wUPfypI@e129823.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:00:35 +0000
From: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>
To: Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	david@...nel.org, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com,
	Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, rppt@...nel.org,
	surenb@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, ast@...nel.org,
	daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
	eddyz87@...il.com, song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
	john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me,
	haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, jackmanb@...gle.com,
	hannes@...xchg.org, ziy@...dia.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
	clrkwllms@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
	will@...nel.org, kevin.brodsky@....com, dev.jain@....com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce pagetable_alloc_nolock()

Hi Yang,

> On 12/17/25 9:04 PM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> > On 17/12/2025 10:48, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > Hi Ryan,
> > >
> > > > On 16/12/2025 16:52, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > > > Hi Ryan,
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/12/2025 16:18, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > > > > > Some architectures invoke pagetable_alloc() or __get_free_pages()
> > > > > > > with preemption disabled.
> > > > > > > For example, in arm64, linear_map_split_to_ptes() calls pagetable_alloc()
> > > > > > > while spliting block entry to ptes and __kpti_install_ng_mappings()
> > > > > > > calls __get_free_pages() to create kpti pagetable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Under PREEMPT_RT, calling pagetable_alloc() with
> > > > > > > preemption disabled is not allowed, because it may acquire
> > > > > > > a spin lock that becomes sleepable on RT, potentially
> > > > > > > causing a sleep during page allocation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since above two functions is called as callback of stop_machine()
> > > > > > > where its callback is called in preemption disabled,
> > > > > > > They could make a potential problem. (sleeping in preemption disabled).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To address this, introduce pagetable_alloc_nolock() API.
> > > > > > I don't really understand what the problem is that you're trying to fix. As I
> > > > > > see it, there are 2 call sites in arm64 arch code that are calling into the page
> > > > > > allocator from stop_machine() - one via via pagetable_alloc() and another via
> > > > > > __get_free_pages(). But both of those calls are passing in GFP_ATOMIC. It was my
> > > > > > understanding that the page allocator would ensure it never sleeps when
> > > > > > GFP_ATOMIC is passed in, (even for PREEMPT_RT)?
> > > > > Although GFP_ATOMIC is specify, it only affects of "water mark" of the
> > > > > page with __GFP_HIGH. and to get a page, it must grab the lock --
> > > > > zone->lock or pcp_lock in the rmqueue().
> > > > >
> > > > > This zone->lock and pcp_lock is spin_lock and it's a sleepable in
> > > > > PREEMPT_RT that's why the memory allocation/free using general API
> > > > > except nolock() version couldn't be called since
> > > > > if "contention" happens they'll sleep while waiting to get the lock.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason why "nolock()" can use, it always uses "trylock" with
> > > > > ALLOC_TRYLOCK flags. otherwise GFP_ATOMIC also can be sleepable in
> > > > > PREEMPT_RT.
> > > > >
> > > > > > What is the actual symptom you are seeing?
> > > > > Since the place where called while smp_cpus_done() and there seems no
> > > > > contention, there seems no problem. However as I mention in another
> > > > > thread
> > > > > (https://lore.kernel.org/all/aT%2FdrjN1BkvyAGoi@e129823.arm.com/),
> > > > > This gives a the false impression --
> > > > > GFP_ATOMIC are “safe to use in preemption disabled”
> > > > > even though they are not in PREEMPT_RT case, I've changed it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If the page allocator is somehow ignoring the GFP_ATOMIC request for PREEMPT_RT,
> > > > > > then isn't that a bug in the page allocator? I'm not sure why you would change
> > > > > > the callsites? Can't you just change the page allocator based on GFP_ATOMIC?
> > > > > It doesn't ignore the GFP_ATOMIC feature:
> > > > >    - __GFP_HIGH: use water mark till min reserved
> > > > >    - __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM: wake up kswapd if reclaim required.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, it's a restriction -- "page allocation / free" API cannot be called
> > > > > in preempt-disabled context at PREEMPT_RT.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's why I think it's wrong usage not a page allocator bug.
> > > > I've taken a look at this and I agree with your analysis. Thanks for explaining.
> > > >
> > > > Looking at other stop_machine() callbacks, there are some that call printk() and
> > > > I would assume that spinlocks could be taken there which may present the same
> > > > kind of issue or PREEMPT_RT? (I'm guessing). I don't see any others that attempt
> > > > to allocate memory though.
> > > IIRC, there was a problem related for printk while try to grab
> > > pl011_console related lock (spin_lock) while holding
> > > console_lock(raw_spin_lock) in v6.10.0-rc7 at rpi5:
> > >
> > >      [  230.381263] CPU: 2 PID: 5574 Comm: syz.4.1695 Not tainted 6.10.0-rc7-01903-g52828ea60dfd #3
> > >      [  230.381479] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
> > >      [  230.381565] Call trace:
> > >      [  230.381607]  dump_backtrace+0x318/0x348
> > >      [  230.381727]  show_stack+0x4c/0x80
> > >      [  230.381875]  dump_stack_lvl+0x214/0x328
> > >      [  230.382159]  dump_stack+0x3c/0x58
> > >      [  230.382456]  __lock_acquire+0x4398/0x4720
> > >      [  230.382683]  lock_acquire+0x648/0xb70
> > >      [  230.382928]  _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x138/0x240
> > >      [  230.383121]  pl011_console_write+0x240/0x8a0
> > >      [  230.383356]  console_flush_all+0x708/0x1368
> > >      [  230.383571]  console_unlock+0x180/0x440
> > >      [  230.383742]  vprintk_emit+0x1f8/0x9d0
> > >      [  230.383832]  vprintk_default+0x64/0x90
> > >      [  230.383914]  vprintk+0x2d0/0x400
> > >      [  230.383971]  _printk+0xdc/0x128
> > >      [  230.384229]  hrtimer_interrupt+0x8f0/0x920
> > >      [  230.384414]  arch_timer_handler_virt+0xc0/0x100
> > >      [  230.384812]  handle_percpu_devid_irq+0x20c/0x4e0
> > >      [  230.385053]  generic_handle_domain_irq+0xc0/0x120
> > >      [  230.385367]  gic_handle_irq+0x88/0x360
> > >      [  230.385559]  call_on_irq_stack+0x24/0x70
> > >      [  230.385801]  do_interrupt_handler+0xf8/0x200
> > >      [  230.386092]  el1_interrupt+0x68/0xc0
> > >      [  230.386434]  el1h_64_irq_handler+0x18/0x28
> > >      [  230.386716]  el1h_64_irq+0x64/0x68
> > >      [  230.386853]  __sanitizer_cov_trace_const_cmp2+0x30/0x68
> > >      [  230.387026]  alloc_pages_mpol_noprof+0x170/0x698
> > >      [  230.387309]  vma_alloc_folio_noprof+0x128/0x2a8
> > >      [  230.387610]  vma_alloc_zeroed_movable_folio+0xa0/0xe0
> > >      [  230.387822]  folio_prealloc+0x5c/0x280
> > >      [  230.388008]  do_wp_page+0xc30/0x3bc0
> > >      [  230.388206]  __handle_mm_fault+0xdb8/0x2ba0
> > >      [  230.388448]  handle_mm_fault+0x194/0x8a8
> > >      [  230.388676]  do_page_fault+0x6bc/0x1030
> > >      [  230.388924]  do_mem_abort+0x8c/0x240
> > >      [  230.389056]  el0_da+0xf0/0x3f8
> > >      [  230.389178]  el0t_64_sync_handler+0xb4/0x130
> > >      [  230.389452]  el0t_64_sync+0x190/0x198
> > >
> > > But this problem is gone when I try with some of patches in rt-tree
> > > related for printk which are merged in current tree
> > > (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git/log/?h=linux-6.10.y-rt-rebase).
> > >
> > > So I think printk() wouldn't be a problem.
> > >
> > > > Anyway, to fix the 2 arm64 callsites, I see 2 possible approaches:
> > > >
> > > > - Call the nolock variant (as you are doing). But that would just convert a
> > > > deadlock to a panic; if the lock is held when stop_machine() runs, without your
> > > > change, we now have a deadlock due to waiting on the lock inside stop_machine().
> > > > With your change, we notice the lock is already taken and panic. I guess it is
> > > > marginally better, but not by much. Certainly I would just _always_ call the
> > > > nolock variant regardless of PREEMPT_RT if we take this route; For !PREEMPT_RT,
> > > > the lock is guarranteed to be free so nolock will always succeed.
> > > >
> > > > - Preallocate the memory before entering stop_machine(). I think this would be
> > > > much more robust. For kpti_install_ng_mappings() I think you could hoist the
> > > > allocation/free out of stop_machine() and pass the pointer in pretty easily. For
> > > > linear_map_split_to_ptes() its a bit more complex; Perhaps, we need to walk the
> > > > pgtable to figure out how much to preallocate, allocate it, then set it up as a
> > > > special allocator, wrapped by an allocation function and modify the callchain to
> > > > take a callback function instead of gfp flags.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > Definitely, second suggestoin is much better.
> > > My question is whether *memory contention* really happen in the point
> > > both functions are called.
> > My guess would be that it's unlikely, but not impossible. The secondary CPUs are
> > up, and presumably running their idle thread. I think various power management
> > things can be plugged into the idle thread; if so, then I guess it's possible
> > that the CPU could be running some hook as part of a power state transition, and
> > that could be dynamically allocating memory? That's all just a guess though; I
> > don't know the details of that part of the system.
>
> Sorry for chiming in late. I was just done my travel, but still suffered
> from jet lag. I may be out of my mind...

No worries. and I hope you feel better soon :).

>
> I agree the sleeping lock is a problem for -rt kernel. But it is hard for me
> to understand how come the lock contention could happen. When the boot CPU
> is repainting the linear map, the secondary CPUs are running in a busy loop
> to wait for idmap_kpti_bbml2_flag is cleared by the boot CPU instead of idle
> thread. And the secondary CPUs running with idmap active and init_mm
> inactive. So the nolock variant seems good enough to me if I don't miss
> anything.

As Ryan said, “It’s unlikely, but not impossible.”

For example, suppose someone creates a kthread bound to a CPU
other than the kernel_init() task during early_initcall,
and that thread performs memory allocation.
(Of course, I don’t expect anyone to actually do this;
it’s just to illustrate that it’s not impossible.)

When that CPU comes online, the kthread will be scheduled and will attempt to allocate memory.

Meanwhile, another CPU executing smp_init() calls smp_cpus_done() and
then invokes linear_map_split_to_ptes().

If the kthread performing memory allocation is preempted
by the stopper thread at that point, linear_map_split_to_ptes() could fail,
because the memory-allocation-related lock is already held by the kthread.

So, I've sent a new version of this:
  - https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251218194750.395301-1-yeoreum.yun@arm.com/


Thanks!

--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun

Powered by blists - more mailing lists