Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1343287
| From | "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) |
| Date | 2016-02-25 17:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r66Eh-6kS-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <r1pxW-1vA-55@gated-at.bofh.it> <r5k6C-5fs-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <r5pJ1-G1-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <r5qc2-SW-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <r66kW-5Wh-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 03:49:33PM +0000, Steve Capper wrote: > On 23 February 2016 at 18:47, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > [adding Steve, since he worked on THP for 32-bit ARM] > > Apologies for my late reply... > > > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 07:19:07PM +0100, Gerald Schaefer wrote: > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:32:21 +0300 > >> "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote: > >> > The theory is that the splitting bit effetely masked bogus pmd_present(): > >> > we had pmd_trans_splitting() in all code path and that prevented mm from > >> > touching the pmd. Once pmd_trans_splitting() has gone, mm proceed with the > >> > pmd where it shouldn't and here's a boom. > >> > >> Well, I don't think pmd_present() == true is bogus for a trans_huge pmd under > >> splitting, after all there is a page behind the the pmd. Also, if it was > >> bogus, and it would need to be false, why should it be marked !pmd_present() > >> only at the pmdp_invalidate() step before the pmd_populate()? It clearly > >> is pmd_present() before that, on all architectures, and if there was any > >> problem/race with that, setting it to !pmd_present() at this stage would > >> only (marginally) reduce the race window. > >> > >> BTW, PowerPC and Sparc seem to do the same thing in pmdp_invalidate(), > >> i.e. they do not set pmd_present() == false, only mark it so that it would > >> not generate a new TLB entry, just like on s390. After all, the function > >> is called pmdp_invalidate(), and I think the comment in mm/huge_memory.c > >> before that call is just a little ambiguous in its wording. When it says > >> "mark the pmd notpresent" it probably means "mark it so that it will not > >> generate a new TLB entry", which is also what the comment is really about: > >> prevent huge and small entries in the TLB for the same page at the same > >> time. > >> > >> FWIW, and since the ARM arch-list is already on cc, I think there is > >> an issue with pmdp_invalidate() on ARM, since it also seems to clear > >> the trans_huge (and formerly trans_splitting) bit, which actually makes > >> the pmd !pmd_present(), but it violates the other requirement from the > >> comment: > >> "the pmd_trans_huge and pmd_trans_splitting must remain set at all times > >> on the pmd until the split is complete for this pmd" > > > > I've only been testing this for arm64 (where I'm yet to see a problem), > > but we use the generic pmdp_invalidate implementation from > > mm/pgtable-generic.c there. On arm64, pmd_trans_huge will return true > > after pmd_mknotpresent. On arm, it does look to be buggy, since it nukes > > the entire entry... Steve? > > pmd_mknotpresent on arm looks inconsistent with the other > architectures and can be changed. > > Having had a look at the usage, I can't see it causing an immediate > problem (that needs to be addressed by an emergency patch). > We don't have a notion of splitting pmds (so there is no splitting > information to lose), and the only usage I could see of > pmd_mknotpresent was: > > pmdp_invalidate(vma, haddr, pmd); > pmd_populate(mm, pmd, pgtable); > > In mm/huge_memory.c, around line 3588. > > So we invalidate the entry (which puts down a faulting entry from > pmd_mknotpresent and invalidates tlb), then immediately put down a > table entry with pmd_populate. > > I have run a 32-bit ARM test kernel and exacerbated THP splits (that's > what took me time), and I didn't notice any problems with 4.5-rc5. If I read code correctly, your pmd_mknotpresent() makes the pmd pmd_none(), right? If yes, it's a problem. It introduces race I've described here: https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=144723658100512&w=4 Basically, if zap_pmd_range() would see pmd_none() between pmdp_mknotpresent() and pmd_populate(), we're screwed. The race window is small, but it's there. -- Kirill A. Shutemov
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name> - 2016-02-23 13:20 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-02-23 18:50 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com> - 2016-02-23 19:20 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-02-23 19:50 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org> - 2016-02-25 16:50 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name> - 2016-02-25 17:10 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org> - 2016-02-25 17:10 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-02-23 21:30 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 11:20 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-02-24 11:50 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 12:00 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-02-24 12:10 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 18:30 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 09:30 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 09:40 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) Sebastian Ott <sebott@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 13:20 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name> - 2016-02-24 10:20 +0100
Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM) Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com> - 2016-02-24 17:50 +0100
csiph-web