From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Subject: Re: uninitialized pmem struct pages
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 16:15:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <26db2c3e-10c7-c6e3-23f7-21eb5101b31a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210104151005.GK13207@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 04.01.21 16:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 04-01-21 15:51:35, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 04.01.21 15:26, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Mon 04-01-21 11:45:39, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [....]
>>>> One instance where this is still an issue is
>>>> mm/memory-failure.c:memory_failure() and
>>>> mm/memory-failure.c:soft_offline_page(). I thought for a while about
>>>> "fixing" these, but to me it felt like fixing pfn_to_online_page() is
>>>> actually the right approach.
>>>>
>>>> But worse, before ZONE_DEVICE hot-add
>>>> 1. The whole section memmap does already exist (early sections always
>>>> have a full memmap for the whole section)
>>>> 2. The whole section memmap is initialized (although eventually with
>>>> dummy node/zone 0/0 for memory holes until that part is fixed) and might
>>>> be accessed by pfn walkers.
>>>>
>>>> So when hotadding ZONE_DEVICE we are modifying already existing and
>>>> visible memmaps. Bad.
>>>
>>> Could you elaborate please?
>>
>> Simplistic example: Assume you have a VM with 64MB on x86-64.
>>
>> We need exactly one memory section (-> one memory block device). We
>> allocate the memmap for a full section - an "early section". So we have
>> a memmap for 128MB, while 64MB are actually in use, the other 64MB is
>> initialized (like a memory hole). pfn_to_online_page() would return a
>> valid struct page for the whole section memmap.
>>
>> The remaining 64MB can later be used for hot-adding ZONE_DEVICE memory,
>> essentially re-initializing that part of the already-existing memmap.
>>
>> See pfn_valid():
>>
>> /*
>> * Traditionally early sections always returned pfn_valid() for
>> * the entire section-sized span.
>> */
>> return early_section(ms) || pfn_section_valid(ms, pfn);
>>
>>
>> Depending on the memory layout of the system, a pfn walker might just be
>> about to stumble over this range getting re-initialized.
>
> Right. But as long as pfn walkers are not synchronized with the memory
> hotplug this is a general problem with any struct page. Whether it
> belongs to pmem or a regular memory, no?
Yes, however in this case even the memory hotplug lock does not help.
But yes, related issues.
>
>>>> 2. Deferred init of ZONE_DEVICE ranges
>>>>
>>>> memmap_init_zone_device() runs after the ZONE_DEVICE zone was resized
>>>> and outside the memhp lock. I did not follow if the use of
>>>> get_dev_pagemap() actually makes sure that memmap_init_zone_device() in
>>>> pagemap_range() actually completed. I don't think it does.
>>>
>>> So a pfn walker can see an unitialized struct page for a while, right?
>>>
>>> The problem that I have encountered is that some zone device pages are
>>> not initialized at all. That sounds like a different from those 2 above.
>>> I am having hard time to track what kind of pages those are and why we
>>> cannot initialized their zone/node and make them reserved at least.
>>
>> And you are sure that these are in fact ZONE_DEVICE pages? Not memory
>> holes e.g., tackled by
>
> Well, the physical address matches the pmem range so I believe this is
> the case.
>
> [...]
>> However, I do remember a discussion regarding "reserved altmap space"
>> ZONE_DEVICE ranges, and whether to initialize them or leave them
>> uninitialized. See comment in
>>
>> commit 77e080e7680e1e615587352f70c87b9e98126d03
>> Author: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
>> Date: Fri Oct 18 20:19:39 2019 -0700
>>
>> mm/memunmap: don't access uninitialized memmap in memunmap_pages()
>
> yes, the reserved altmap space sounds like it might be it.
[...]
> Would it be possible to iterate over the reserved space and initialize
> Node/zones at least?
Right, I was confused by the terminology. We actually initialize the
pages used for memory mapping in
move_pfn_range_to_zone()->memmap_init_zone(). But we seem to exclude the
"reserved space" - I think for good reason.
I think the issue is that this "reserved space" might actually get
overridden by something else later, as it won't be used as a memmap, but
just to store "anything".
Do the physical addresses you see fall into the same section as boot
memory? Or what's around these addresses?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-04 15:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-04 10:03 Michal Hocko
2021-01-04 10:45 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-04 14:26 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-04 14:51 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-04 15:10 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-04 15:15 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2021-01-04 15:33 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-04 15:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-04 15:44 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-05 8:00 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 8:16 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 8:27 ` Dan Williams
2021-01-05 8:42 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 8:57 ` Dan Williams
2021-01-05 9:05 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 9:13 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-05 9:25 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 9:27 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-04 15:59 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-04 16:30 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-05 7:44 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 9:56 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-05 5:33 ` Dan Williams
2021-01-05 7:40 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 5:17 ` Dan Williams
2021-01-05 7:50 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-05 9:16 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-05 9:25 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-05 9:33 ` Dan Williams
2021-01-05 9:37 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-01-05 9:56 ` Dan Williams
2021-01-05 9:58 ` David Hildenbrand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=26db2c3e-10c7-c6e3-23f7-21eb5101b31a@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox