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 2C8D1C4332F for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 05:49:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 8C39F6B0072; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 01:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 873B16B0073; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 01:49:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 7626C6B0074; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 01:49:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673486B0072 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 01:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin21.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3976BA0803 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 05:49:08 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80036620776.21.E5B3DB7 Received: from mail-lf1-f51.google.com (mail-lf1-f51.google.com [209.85.167.51]) by imf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56EE80008 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 05:49:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f51.google.com with SMTP id bp15so26336986lfb.13 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 22:49:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.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=vNPqK162kgqaPz6V+s7e/jdWmhKxKvv/hKpuPFVppac=; b=B6qjDyGBm/aKVQr0poidauzQKsHGvfnmXQDokXWtIQVgrZHQ1T3Erw4Nygpkmefjed ubXpeYboLUlxAKFwLC5v02JInWbMBlk/zbnwnjoihioJ4KbXdNpi6de3Fb9r1SrK8E/O 8A/jb/5bg0g+rm5VRuvenW44FRx30uvRGAHpsoOTYWpA3G/gswQyqkxpkTE8X7DKo+j8 0TvYDB0DpGz3ZBEgazvIQWYK/bFdwWcxif6CVDEFWO+1oQ3m4om2PgLkPlYaDIgg3FQP WvcFBPv5sjkZxlhvN7HAWXFkQTPvNuDgWNUYY3XXHF/SY2e08BYqTTdq84VW7Z1ukVJf sudw== 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=vNPqK162kgqaPz6V+s7e/jdWmhKxKvv/hKpuPFVppac=; b=4rKuWqUKOZYzeFoq8ov82ViW3W+5zwCh/AdWsukxqpVHAWdtm/7X3bbQDEeoSkFTS2 aICL7255qX+YVnz6oFH8bwsDGwRSlgqZtaDqZqhp85J0WsReQQ/hSk3fnsiu3Xfe2G+g aPCjeee10Z9wM7IuPF2w26zsrAUniqFPexPxu3Kc9e0RM+4DNAny4TnfUYL9qQsukMUI QLYJNai5vRge7UuiWjSPsH2mJ/IIABRqpYcPSBKOta2QgSqfDxqRZZxX3K3WAHwp1xZe qxL87bPTmfnjvPL2f09fF9+2jYxLG7SSOLfakLKrqlgXp76dQI5eK1pcjRS95hp/ag7t 7gKA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2qQ+28a2Hx97mw0OPE2wC12NCZGoWG+ZD/IwfEPAz3193cWfRx rLTPVdkk3HXppdzXZH67lKuk10onWsxjEAFpE8c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6ZrZsopl5vtDdZTrR2QjxvZjDBdP1lnO5DmjKSqIRkFTS5xmOUv5Wwo/XD9eSEZio7Ytcv+uSheZX03RYSchw= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5f51:0:b0:4a4:5e1f:fce1 with SMTP id 17-20020ac25f51000000b004a45e1ffce1mr2405597lfz.130.1666158545890; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 22:49:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1665725448-31439-1-git-send-email-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> <20221018223042.GJ2703033@dread.disaster.area> <20221019011636.GM2703033@dread.disaster.area> <20221019044734.GN2703033@dread.disaster.area> In-Reply-To: <20221019044734.GN2703033@dread.disaster.area> From: Zhaoyang Huang Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:48:37 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: move xa forward when run across zombie page To: Dave Chinner Cc: Matthew Wilcox , "zhaoyang.huang" , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ke.wang@unisoc.com, steve.kang@unisoc.com, baocong.liu@unisoc.com, linux-fsdevel@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=1666158547; 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=vNPqK162kgqaPz6V+s7e/jdWmhKxKvv/hKpuPFVppac=; b=xWDk6pXggJk5mdueNbX1f9ogkVOPMAlFS0MnQuchIiyy9IMCwZV3wr2PkVRvbgjJEy7bvl 0XV1vTOCiNeX04ZbVGGSGhG/UGNuFRuLzMXE32cVZvJD6ZOelQGMaKEFVZuyR8l/SloSsK /RmsjETBag0hfURQbL6lIXRSzA7wLKk= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=B6qjDyGB; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of huangzhaoyang@gmail.com designates 209.85.167.51 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=huangzhaoyang@gmail.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1666158547; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=e867YUx/Nv3lxoh+b/AdIHlMRrGIiq2JaObwK5IK+BTlAbO/DZngTti6nxIXWJ5SGF644e p4AjdJvnU3OyufAsqWllMJuj+2R03v3jRC7Ba6SugqkLQVyDei8EyytpE+C0nKDKrrDTTo xvVyY4DCnIvH1sqkGo/HfnwwYBh3mFc= Authentication-Results: imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=B6qjDyGB; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of huangzhaoyang@gmail.com designates 209.85.167.51 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=huangzhaoyang@gmail.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B56EE80008 X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: x6ix58x6suzo7ma9rn4ti8acrffayiqo X-HE-Tag: 1666158547-102046 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 Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:47 PM Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:16:36PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 09:30:42AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 04:09:17AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:52:19AM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 11:55 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 01:34:13PM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 8:12 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 01:30:48PM +0800, zhaoyang.huang wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Zhaoyang Huang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bellowing RCU stall is reported where kswapd traps in a live lock when shrink > > > > > > > > > superblock's inode list. The direct reason is zombie page keeps staying on the > > > > > > > > > xarray's slot and make the check and retry loop permanently. The root cause is unknown yet > > > > > > > > > and supposed could be an xa update without synchronize_rcu etc. I would like to > > > > > > > > > suggest skip this page to break the live lock as a workaround. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, the underlying bug should be fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > Understand. IMHO, find_get_entry actruely works as an open API dealing > > > > > with different kinds of address_spaces page cache, which requires high > > > > > robustness to deal with any corner cases. Take the current problem as > > > > > example, the inode with fault page(refcount=0) could remain on the > > > > > sb's list without live lock problem. > > > > > > > > But it's a corner case that shouldn't happen! What else is going on > > > > at the time? Can you reproduce this problem easily? If so, how? > > > > > > I've been seeing this livelock, too. The reproducer is, > > > unfortunately, something I can't share - it's a massive program that > > > triggers a data corruption I'm working on solving. > > > > > > Now that I've > > > mostly fixed the data corruption, long duration test runs end up > > > livelocking in page cache lookup after several hours. > > > > > > The test is effectively writing a 100MB file with multiple threads > > > doing reverse adjacent racing 1MB unaligned writes. Once the file is > > > written, it is then mmap()d and read back from the filesystem for > > > verification. > > > > > > THis is then run with tens of processes concurrently, and then under > > > a massively confined memcg (e.g. 32 processes/files are run in a > > > memcg with only 200MB of memory allowed). This causes writeback, > > > readahead and memory reclaim to race with incoming mmap read faults > > > and writes. The livelock occurs on file verification and it appears > > > to be an interaction with readahead thrashing. > > > > > > On my test rig, the physical read to write ratio is at least 20:1 - > > > with 32 processes running, the 5s IO rates are: > > > > > > Device tps MB_read/s MB_wrtn/s MB_dscd/s MB_read MB_wrtn MB_dscd > > > dm-0 52187.20 3677.42 1345.92 0.00 18387 6729 0 > > > dm-0 62865.60 5947.29 0.08 0.00 29736 0 0 > > > dm-0 62972.80 5911.20 0.00 0.00 29556 0 0 > > > dm-0 59803.00 5516.72 133.47 0.00 27583 667 0 > > > dm-0 63068.20 5292.34 511.52 0.00 26461 2557 0 > > > dm-0 56775.60 4184.52 1248.38 0.00 20922 6241 0 > > > dm-0 63087.40 5901.26 43.77 0.00 29506 218 0 > > > dm-0 62769.00 5833.97 60.54 0.00 29169 302 0 > > > dm-0 64810.20 5636.13 305.63 0.00 28180 1528 0 > > > dm-0 65222.60 5598.99 349.48 0.00 27994 1747 0 > > > dm-0 62444.00 4887.05 926.67 0.00 24435 4633 0 > > > dm-0 63812.00 5622.68 294.66 0.00 28113 1473 0 > > > dm-0 63482.00 5728.43 195.74 0.00 28642 978 0 > > > > > > This is reading and writing the same amount of file data at the > > > application level, but once the data has been written and kicked out > > > of the page cache it seems to require an awful lot more read IO to > > > get it back to the application. i.e. this looks like mmap() is > > > readahead thrashing severely, and eventually it livelocks with this > > > sort of report: > > > > > > [175901.982484] rcu: INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: > > > [175901.985095] rcu: Tasks blocked on level-1 rcu_node (CPUs 0-15): P25728 > > > [175901.987996] (detected by 0, t=97399871 jiffies, g=15891025, q=1972622 ncpus=32) > > > [175901.991698] task:test_write state:R running task stack:12784 pid:25728 ppid: 25696 flags:0x00004002 > > > [175901.995614] Call Trace: > > > [175901.996090] > > > [175901.996594] ? __schedule+0x301/0xa30 > > > [175901.997411] ? sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0xb/0x90 > > > [175901.998513] ? sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0xb/0x90 > > > [175901.999578] ? asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20 > > > [175902.000714] ? xas_start+0x53/0xc0 > > > [175902.001484] ? xas_load+0x24/0xa0 > > > [175902.002208] ? xas_load+0x5/0xa0 > > > [175902.002878] ? __filemap_get_folio+0x87/0x340 > > > [175902.003823] ? filemap_fault+0x139/0x8d0 > > > [175902.004693] ? __do_fault+0x31/0x1d0 > > > [175902.005372] ? __handle_mm_fault+0xda9/0x17d0 > > > [175902.006213] ? handle_mm_fault+0xd0/0x2a0 > > > [175902.006998] ? exc_page_fault+0x1d9/0x810 > > > [175902.007789] ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x22/0x30 > > > [175902.008613] > > > > > > Given that filemap_fault on XFS is probably trying to map large > > > folios, I do wonder if this is a result of some kind of race with > > > teardown of a large folio... > > > > > > There is a very simple corruption reproducer script that has been > > > written, but I haven't been using it. I don't know if long term > > > running of the script here: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/d00aff43-2bdc-0724-1996-4e58e061ecfd@redhat.com/ > > > > > > will trigger the livelock as the verification step is > > > significantly different, but it will give you insight into the > > > setup of the environment that leads to the livelock. Maybe you could > > > replace the md5sum verification with a mmap read with xfs_io to > > > simulate the fault load that seems to lead to this issue... > > > > FWIW, just tested this on a current Linus kernel. While there is > > massive read-ahead thrashing on v6.0, the thrashing is largely gone > > in v6.1-rc1+ and the iteration rate of the test is much, much > > better. The livelock remains, however. > > Evidence is starting to point to an interaction with the multi-page > folio support in the page cache. > > I removed the mapping_set_large_folios() calls in the XFS inode > instantiation and the test code has now run over 55,000 iterations > without failing. The most iterations I'd seen with large folios > enabled was about 7,000 - typically it would fail within 2-3,000 > iterations. hint from my side. The original problem I raised is under v5.15 where there is no folio yet. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com