[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gYnXE-y_aGehazzF-Kej5ibSfqvE2hTnjKJD68bm8ANg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:33:10 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Maling list - DRI developers
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
"Linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Maor Gottlieb <maorg@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 00/25] mm/gup: track dma-pinned pages: FOLL_PIN
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:22 AM Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> On Thu 19-12-19 12:30:31, John Hubbard wrote:
> > On 12/19/19 5:26 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 02:25:12PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > This implements an API naming change (put_user_page*() -->
> > > > unpin_user_page*()), and also implements tracking of FOLL_PIN pages. It
> > > > extends that tracking to a few select subsystems. More subsystems will
> > > > be added in follow up work.
> > >
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > The patchset generates kernel panics in our IB testing. In our tests, we
> > > allocated single memory block and registered multiple MRs using the single
> > > block.
> > >
> > > The possible bad flow is:
> > > ib_umem_geti() ->
> > > pin_user_pages_fast(FOLL_WRITE) ->
> > > internal_get_user_pages_fast(FOLL_WRITE) ->
> > > gup_pgd_range() ->
> > > gup_huge_pd() ->
> > > gup_hugepte() ->
> > > try_grab_compound_head() ->
> >
> > Hi Leon,
> >
> > Thanks very much for the detailed report! So we're overflowing...
> >
> > At first look, this seems likely to be hitting a weak point in the
> > GUP_PIN_COUNTING_BIAS-based design, one that I believed could be deferred
> > (there's a writeup in Documentation/core-api/pin_user_page.rst, lines
> > 99-121). Basically it's pretty easy to overflow the page->_refcount
> > with huge pages if the pages have a *lot* of subpages.
> >
> > We can only do about 7 pins on 1GB huge pages that use 4KB subpages.
> > Do you have any idea how many pins (repeated pins on the same page, which
> > it sounds like you have) might be involved in your test case,
> > and the huge page and system page sizes? That would allow calculating
> > if we're likely overflowing for that reason.
> >
> > So, ideas and next steps:
> >
> > 1. Assuming that you *are* hitting this, I think I may have to fall back to
> > implementing the "deferred" part of this design, as part of this series, after
> > all. That means:
> >
> > For the pin/unpin calls at least, stop treating all pages as if they are
> > a cluster of PAGE_SIZE pages; instead, retrieve a huge page as one page.
> > That's not how it works now, and the need to hand back a huge array of
> > subpages is part of the problem. This affects the callers too, so it's not
> > a super quick change to make. (I was really hoping not to have to do this
> > yet.)
>
> Does that mean that you would need to make all GUP users huge page aware?
> Otherwise I don't see how what you suggest would work... And I don't think
> making all GUP users huge page aware is realistic (effort-wise) or even
> wanted (maintenance overhead in all those places).
>
> I believe there might be also a different solution for this: For
> transparent huge pages, we could find a space in 'struct page' of the
> second page in the huge page for proper pin counter and just account pins
> there so we'd have full width of 32-bits for it.
That would require THP accounting for dax pages. It is something that
was probably going to be needed, but this would seem to force the
issue.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists