From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05488C4332F for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 19:14:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 658516B0071; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 15:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 608416B0073; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 15:14:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 4F6D46B0074; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 15:14:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8F56B0071 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 15:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin14.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3C5F14046D for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 19:14:16 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80085824112.14.228364D Received: from mail-lj1-f172.google.com (mail-lj1-f172.google.com [209.85.208.172]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4681520017 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 19:14:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-f172.google.com with SMTP id h12so15589600ljg.9 for ; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 12:14:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=8yWGGQy6nd75MxfeaMsUIV4s8QBs1RLTaTKHXtygWyI=; b=lIP+xq5Kgn9HZbrOq8qu+0sEJ7RuCOgkQQdNVNDXTgZLLMd3jQR0o6oATzIwnM2lWN WLEDDzpVUS1oCbA9RyDvUgBOrXQyCc6BgdQW5Ztwg7859HzkXJOnqZL0uLemhn/0Sv6d aLLW+Qbswkh2B0bcIHQ87tjgpvHEwgM2c+/tESXnaTUPZ3GwNlqDmLgGahfLKZb2jZun j+dPyWlL11KidIIxuksY7Pz7z/85HtLRxdT4iqknHgG7uNHln5VrmMm6O/o5q9wmLM5q BEm4OgEOys31Ni2rhI282iTZLLAqPb+5ncGH5RdAS/TbAjlZjj74y2An9qXJoukd6fap BxFQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=8yWGGQy6nd75MxfeaMsUIV4s8QBs1RLTaTKHXtygWyI=; b=No38SNKfGdJbHbaUSMm0US8tKgmCICFqXnBP2UB/SyGCsZGd3AjpbdUIFXa7BLo0i4 GcNEBiJDbjXpfHHOw6ynL17+r9Y0cXDe/K/banTKDKTAu3p8PX98nPMPsTLzQWnCyUBs 2m9W9hWYAvux4mJ5rhhI0BBDLvJqoSH/wcsTpy9C9rHJXZT64es1S8O+bGc1PAwqZLCn UHonAxZhmO7kPnEWVmECem3TAulBGuKaeKc80YY2pw2XZAvWcLDB9KJBaIhBEE+wLHPK jJ+SjniP5G3JZaF6tp407QswEitOXVPSiBykGhjJS0U1FomSkjmEdEMPqraVqBB5WRdg olMA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0WxH9uhFgnFtsHLJwPksPuOzsCjrQICNr5tcUxdO/SHkCtz+46 UQ61dTw0v2E+N+B1eXFIlMov1UmIB69FyB/tsSo6KQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7bB7G05FEiSkW2V70Q/+5r8EyVM0JISba4cQ4DUd1oH4EQf/MZe37nP6WbThGnF0Tpc2J3whFn+nh/1S5GXaE= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8181:0:b0:25f:e028:a67 with SMTP id e1-20020a2e8181000000b0025fe0280a67mr8074104ljg.89.1667330053341; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 12:14:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20221031183122.470962-1-shy828301@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: "Zach O'Keefe" Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2022 12:13:35 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn if the node is offlined To: Yang Shi Cc: Michal Hocko , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1667330055; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=8yWGGQy6nd75MxfeaMsUIV4s8QBs1RLTaTKHXtygWyI=; b=px4XgimbxyFqqopHP7CGuoDv1Y1ueweORNEAi5O2Q/0BGPMAbZKcpyVJ1lTxLPVluseheC 3gTJUpGpZxUrwwERpoJP4CuZcI+4r4tCRetFvHtDh3M0IGWr7AuSBfMhZh3r8W/PpVEWef 8bCeiYHnniRfBcs7VItbMvfj4fLN/TA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf03.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=lIP+xq5K; spf=pass (imf03.hostedemail.com: domain of zokeefe@google.com designates 209.85.208.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=zokeefe@google.com; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1667330055; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=DV7sLQNZSBPLxzTxMwDUe397TWXAMQHjcv8svbARC4wQ+7Oz9Pal/W8Z6rpUDJN+CeKDjt 3UseITZO3adPIiE+moQZwpFnB0suJ5J//SK5akb6yElpZn/9t7+iKBsipovbB2LAXpH1en 4tdYN5+DmOmBceIBzGDQCk6XSA2SC8Y= Authentication-Results: imf03.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=lIP+xq5K; spf=pass (imf03.hostedemail.com: domain of zokeefe@google.com designates 209.85.208.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=zokeefe@google.com; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com X-Stat-Signature: c8ciicbfkc6rdtmy3gnmdm5poc8fzyo4 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam11 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4681520017 X-HE-Tag: 1667330054-608465 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 10:13 AM Yang Shi wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 12:54 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Mon 31-10-22 17:05:06, Zach O'Keefe wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:08 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon 31-10-22 11:31:22, Yang Shi wrote: > > > > > Syzbot reported the below splat: > > > > > > > > > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3646 at include/linux/gfp.h:221 __alloc_pages_node include/linux/gfp.h:221 [inline] > > > > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3646 at include/linux/gfp.h:221 hpage_collapse_alloc_page mm/khugepaged.c:807 [inline] > > > > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3646 at include/linux/gfp.h:221 alloc_charge_hpage+0x802/0xaa0 mm/khugepaged.c:963 > > > > > Modules linked in: > > > > > CPU: 1 PID: 3646 Comm: syz-executor210 Not tainted 6.1.0-rc1-syzkaller-00454-ga70385240892 #0 > > > > > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/11/2022 > > > > > RIP: 0010:__alloc_pages_node include/linux/gfp.h:221 [inline] > > > > > RIP: 0010:hpage_collapse_alloc_page mm/khugepaged.c:807 [inline] > > > > > RIP: 0010:alloc_charge_hpage+0x802/0xaa0 mm/khugepaged.c:963 > > > > > Code: e5 01 4c 89 ee e8 6e f9 ae ff 4d 85 ed 0f 84 28 fc ff ff e8 70 fc ae ff 48 8d 6b ff 4c 8d 63 07 e9 16 fc ff ff e8 5e fc ae ff <0f> 0b e9 96 fa ff ff 41 bc 1a 00 00 00 e9 86 fd ff ff e8 47 fc ae > > > > > RSP: 0018:ffffc90003fdf7d8 EFLAGS: 00010293 > > > > > RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000000 > > > > > RDX: ffff888077f457c0 RSI: ffffffff81cd8f42 RDI: 0000000000000001 > > > > > RBP: ffff888079388c0c R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000 > > > > > R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000000 > > > > > R13: dffffc0000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000 > > > > > FS: 00007f6b48ccf700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9b00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > > > > > CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > > > > > CR2: 00007f6b48a819f0 CR3: 00000000171e7000 CR4: 00000000003506e0 > > > > > DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 > > > > > DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 > > > > > Call Trace: > > > > > > > > > > collapse_file+0x1ca/0x5780 mm/khugepaged.c:1715 > > > > > > > > This is quite weird, isn't it? alloc_charge_hpage is selecting the most > > > > busy node (as per collapse_control). How come this can be an offline > > > > node? Is a parallel memory hotplug happening? > > > > > > TBH -- I did not look closely at the syzbot reproducer (let alone > > > attempt to run it) and assumed this was the case. Taking a quick look, > > > at least memory hot remove is enabled: > > > > > > CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTPLUG=y > > > CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE=y > > > CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG=y > > > CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG_DEFAULT_ONLINE=y > > > CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE=y > > > > > > But looking at the C reproducer, I don't immediately see anywhere > > > where we offline nodes. I'll try to run this tomorrow to make sure I'm > > > not missing something real here. > > > > Looking slightly closer at hpage_collapse_scan_file I think that it is > > possible that xas_for_each simply doesn't find any entries in the page > > cache and with khugepaged_max_ptes_none == HPAGE_PMD_NR we can fall back > > to collapse_file even without any real entries. > > The khugepaged_max_ptes_none can't be HPAGE_PMD_NR, it must be <= > (HPAGE_PMD_NR - 1), but MADV_COLLAPSE does ignore it. > > But a closer look at the code about how to pick up the preferred node, > there seems to be a corner case for MADV_COLLAPSE. > > The code tried to do some balance if several nodes have the same hit > record. Basically it does conceptually: > * If the target_node <= last_target_node, then iterate from > last_target_node + 1 to MAX_NUMNODES (1024 on default config) > * If the max_value == node_load[nid], then target_node = nid > > So assuming the system has 2 nodes, the target_node is 0 and the > last_target_node is 1, if MADV_COLLAPSE path is hit, then it may > return 2 for target_node, but it is actually not existing (offline), > so the warn is triggered. > You're one step ahead of me, Yang. I was just debugging the syzbot C reproducer, and this seems to be exactly the case that is happening. > The below patch should be able to fix it: > > diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c > index ea0d186bc9d4..d24405e6736b 100644 > --- a/mm/khugepaged.c > +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c > @@ -787,7 +787,8 @@ static int hpage_collapse_find_target_node(struct > collapse_control *cc) > if (target_node <= cc->last_target_node) > for (nid = cc->last_target_node + 1; nid < MAX_NUMNODES; > nid++) > - if (max_value == cc->node_load[nid]) { > + if (node_online(nid) && > + max_value == cc->node_load[nid]) { > target_node = nid; > break; > } > Thanks for the patch. I think this is the right place to do the check. This is slightly tangential - but I don't want to send a new mail about it -- but I wonder if we should be doing __GFP_THISNODE + explicit node vs having hpage_collapse_find_target_node() set a nodemask. We could then provide fallback nodes for ties, or if some node contained > some threshold number of pages. > > But the mere possibility of the hotplug race should be a sufficient > > ground to remove those WARN_ONs > Agreed. > The warn_on did help to catch this bug. But the reasons for removing > it still stand TBH, so we may consider to move this warn_on to the > callers which care about it? I didn't come across in a cursory search -- but if there are callers which try to synchronize with hot remove to ensure __GFP_THISNODE succeeds, then sure, the warn makes sense to them. > > > > > > Thanks! > > -- > > Michal Hocko > > SUSE Labs