Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1705842 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-07 22:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-08-11 17:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
[v6 01/15] x86/mm: reserve only exiting low pages Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com> - 2017-08-07 22:50 +0200
Re: [v6 01/15] x86/mm: reserve only exiting low pages Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-08-11 10:10 +0200
Re: [v6 01/15] x86/mm: reserve only exiting low pages Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com> - 2017-08-11 17:30 +0200
| From | Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 22:50 +0200 |
| Subject | [v6 01/15] x86/mm: reserve only exiting low pages |
| Message-ID | <ubX8m-5vB-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Struct pages are initialized by going through __init_single_page(). Since
the existing physical memory in memblock is represented in memblock.memory
list, struct page for every page from this list goes through
__init_single_page().
The second memblock list: memblock.reserved, manages the allocated memory.
The memory that won't be available to kernel allocator. So, every page from
this list goes through reserve_bootmem_region(), where certain struct page
fields are set, the assumption being that the struct pages have been
initialized beforehand.
In trim_low_memory_range() we unconditionally reserve memoryfrom PFN 0, but
memblock.memory might start at a later PFN. For example, in QEMU,
e820__memblock_setup() can use PFN 1 as the first PFN in memblock.memory,
so PFN 0 is not on memblock.memory (and hence isn't initialized via
__init_single_page) but is on memblock.reserved (and hence we set fields in
the uninitialized struct page).
Currently, the struct page memory is always zeroed during allocation,
which prevents this problem from being detected. But, if some asserts
provided by CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_PGFLAGS are tighten, this problem may become
visible in existing kernels.
In this patchset we will stop zeroing struct page memory during allocation.
Therefore, this bug must be fixed in order to avoid random assert failures
caused by CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_PGFLAGS triggers.
The fix is to reserve memory from the first existing PFN.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Bob Picco <bob.picco@oracle.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
index 3486d0498800..489cdc141bcb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
@@ -790,7 +790,10 @@ early_param("reservelow", parse_reservelow);
static void __init trim_low_memory_range(void)
{
- memblock_reserve(0, ALIGN(reserve_low, PAGE_SIZE));
+ unsigned long min_pfn = find_min_pfn_with_active_regions();
+ phys_addr_t base = min_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
+
+ memblock_reserve(base, ALIGN(reserve_low, PAGE_SIZE));
}
/*
--
2.14.0
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 10:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uddb4-14n-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1705842 |
On Mon 07-08-17 16:38:35, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> Struct pages are initialized by going through __init_single_page(). Since
> the existing physical memory in memblock is represented in memblock.memory
> list, struct page for every page from this list goes through
> __init_single_page().
By a page _from_ this list you mean struct pages backing the physical
memory of the memblock lists?
> The second memblock list: memblock.reserved, manages the allocated memory.
> The memory that won't be available to kernel allocator. So, every page from
> this list goes through reserve_bootmem_region(), where certain struct page
> fields are set, the assumption being that the struct pages have been
> initialized beforehand.
>
> In trim_low_memory_range() we unconditionally reserve memoryfrom PFN 0, but
> memblock.memory might start at a later PFN. For example, in QEMU,
> e820__memblock_setup() can use PFN 1 as the first PFN in memblock.memory,
> so PFN 0 is not on memblock.memory (and hence isn't initialized via
> __init_single_page) but is on memblock.reserved (and hence we set fields in
> the uninitialized struct page).
>
> Currently, the struct page memory is always zeroed during allocation,
> which prevents this problem from being detected. But, if some asserts
> provided by CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_PGFLAGS are tighten, this problem may become
> visible in existing kernels.
>
> In this patchset we will stop zeroing struct page memory during allocation.
> Therefore, this bug must be fixed in order to avoid random assert failures
> caused by CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_PGFLAGS triggers.
>
> The fix is to reserve memory from the first existing PFN.
Hmm, I assume this is a result of some assert triggering, right? Which
one? Why don't we need the same treatment for other than x86 arch?
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Bob Picco <bob.picco@oracle.com>
I guess that the review happened inhouse. I do not want to question its
value but it is rather strange to not hear the specific review comments
which might be useful in general and moreover even not include those
people on the CC list so they are aware of the follow up discussion.
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index 3486d0498800..489cdc141bcb 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -790,7 +790,10 @@ early_param("reservelow", parse_reservelow);
>
> static void __init trim_low_memory_range(void)
> {
> - memblock_reserve(0, ALIGN(reserve_low, PAGE_SIZE));
> + unsigned long min_pfn = find_min_pfn_with_active_regions();
> + phys_addr_t base = min_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
> +
> + memblock_reserve(base, ALIGN(reserve_low, PAGE_SIZE));
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 2.14.0
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 17:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <udk2T-5cA-37@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1709359 |
>> Struct pages are initialized by going through __init_single_page(). Since >> the existing physical memory in memblock is represented in memblock.memory >> list, struct page for every page from this list goes through >> __init_single_page(). > > By a page _from_ this list you mean struct pages backing the physical > memory of the memblock lists? Correct: "for every page from this list...", for every page represented by this list the struct page is initialized through __init_single_page() >> In this patchset we will stop zeroing struct page memory during allocation. >> Therefore, this bug must be fixed in order to avoid random assert failures >> caused by CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_PGFLAGS triggers. >> >> The fix is to reserve memory from the first existing PFN. > > Hmm, I assume this is a result of some assert triggering, right? Which > one? Why don't we need the same treatment for other than x86 arch? Correct, the pgflags asserts were triggered when we were setting reserved flags to struct page for PFN 0 in which was never initialized through __init_single_page(). The reason they were triggered is because we set all uninitialized memory to ones in one of the debug patches. >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com> >> Reviewed-by: Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com> >> Reviewed-by: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com> >> Reviewed-by: Bob Picco <bob.picco@oracle.com> > > I guess that the review happened inhouse. I do not want to question its > value but it is rather strange to not hear the specific review comments > which might be useful in general and moreover even not include those > people on the CC list so they are aware of the follow up discussion. I will bring this up with my colleagues to how to handle this better in the future. I will also CC the reviewers when I sent out the updated patch series.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web