Re: [PATCH v3] mm/page_alloc: Require pahole v1.22 to cope with zero-sized struct pagesets

[Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>]

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:42 AM Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:17:48PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > Andrii Nakryiko bisected the problem to the commit "mm/page_alloc: convert
> > > per-cpu list protection to local_lock" currently staged in mmotm. In his
> > > own words
> > >
> > >   The immediate problem is two different definitions of numa_node per-cpu
> > >   variable. They both are at the same offset within .data..percpu ELF
> > >   section, they both have the same name, but one of them is marked as
> > >   static and another as global. And one is int variable, while another
> > >   is struct pagesets. I'll look some more tomorrow, but adding Jiri and
> > >   Arnaldo for visibility.
> > >
> > >   [110907] DATASEC '.data..percpu' size=178904 vlen=303
> > >   ...
> > >         type_id=27753 offset=163976 size=4 (VAR 'numa_node')
> > >         type_id=27754 offset=163976 size=4 (VAR 'numa_node')
> > >
> > >   [27753] VAR 'numa_node' type_id=27556, linkage=static
> > >   [27754] VAR 'numa_node' type_id=20, linkage=global
> > >
> > >   [20] INT 'int' size=4 bits_offset=0 nr_bits=32 encoding=SIGNED
> > >
> > >   [27556] STRUCT 'pagesets' size=0 vlen=1
> > >         'lock' type_id=507 bits_offset=0
> > >
> > >   [506] STRUCT '(anon)' size=0 vlen=0
> > >   [507] TYPEDEF 'local_lock_t' type_id=506
> > >
> > > The patch in question introduces a zero-sized per-cpu struct and while
> > > this is not wrong, versions of pahole prior to 1.22 get confused during
> > > BTF generation with two separate variables occupying the same address.
> > >
> > > This patch adds a requirement for pahole 1.22 before setting
> > > DEBUG_INFO_BTF.  While pahole 1.22 does not exist yet, a fix is in the
> > > pahole git tree as ("btf_encoder: fix and complete filtering out zero-sized
> > > per-CPU variables").
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@suse.de>
> > > Reported-by: Hritik Vijay <hritikxx8@gmail.com>
> > > Debugged-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
> > > ---
> >
> > I still think that v1 ([0]) is a more appropriate temporary solution
> > until pahole 1.22 is released and widely packaged. Suddenly raising
> > the minimum version to 1.22, which is not even released even, is a
> > pretty big compatibility concern for all the users that rely on
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF.
>
> On the flip side, we have a situation where a build tool (pahole) has a
> problem whereby correct code does not result in a working kernel. It's
> not that dissimilar to preventing the kernel being built on an old
> compiler. While I accept it's unfortunate, Christoph had a point where
> introducing workarounds in the kernel could lead to a prolification of
> workarounds for pahole or other reasons that are potentially tricky to
> revert as long as distributions exist that do not ship with a sufficiently
> reason package.
>
> > Just a few days ago pahole 1.16 worked fine and
> > here we suddenly (and silently due to how Kconfig functions) raise
> > that to a version that doesn't exist. That's going to break workflows
> > for a lot of people.
> >
>
> People do have a workaround though. For the system building the kernel,
> they can patch pahole and revert the check so a bootable kernel can be
> built. It's not convenient but it is manageable and pahole has until
> 5.13 releases to release a v1.22. The downsides for the alternative --
> a non-booting kernel are much more severe.
>
> > I'm asking to have that ugly work-around to ensure sizeof(struct
> > pagesets) > 0 as a temporary solution only.
>
> Another temporary solution is to locally build pahole and either revert
> the check or fake the 1.22 release number with the self-built pahole.
>

Well, luckily it seems we anticipated issues like that and added
--skip_encoding_btf_vars argument, which I completely forgot about and
just accidentally came across reviewing Arnaldo's latest pahole patch.
I think that one is a much better solution, as then it will impact
only those that explicitly relies on availability of BTF for per-CPU
variables, which is a subset of all possible uses for kernel BTF. Sent
a patch ([0]), please take a look.

  [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210530002536.3193829-1-andrii@kernel.org/T/#u

> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs