On 19 Sep 2023, at 8:37, Zi Yan wrote:

> On 19 Sep 2023, at 2:49, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 10:40:37AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> On 09/18/23 10:52, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 09:16:58AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>>> On 9/16/23 21:57, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/15/23 10:16, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 04:52:38PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the patch below applied, a slightly different workload triggers the
>>>>>> following warnings.  It seems related, and appears to go away when
>>>>>> reverting the series.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [  331.595382] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>>>>> [  331.596665] page type is 5, passed migratetype is 1 (nr=512)
>>>>>> [  331.598121] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 935 at mm/page_alloc.c:662 expand+0x1c9/0x200
>>>>>
>>>>> Initially I thought this demonstrates the possible race I was suggesting in
>>>>> reply to 6/6. But, assuming you have CONFIG_CMA, page type 5 is cma and we
>>>>> are trying to get a MOVABLE page from a CMA page block, which is something
>>>>> that's normally done and the pageblock stays CMA. So yeah if the warnings
>>>>> are to stay, they need to handle this case. Maybe the same can happen with
>>>>> HIGHATOMIC blocks?
>>
>> Ok, the CMA thing gave me pause because Mike's pagetypeinfo didn't
>> show any CMA pages.
>>
>> 5 is actually MIGRATE_ISOLATE - see the double use of 3 for PCPTYPES
>> and HIGHATOMIC.
>>
>>>> This means we have an order-10 page where one half is MOVABLE and the
>>>> other is CMA.
>>
>> This means the scenario is different:
>>
>> We get a MAX_ORDER page off the MOVABLE freelist. The removal checks
>> that the first pageblock is indeed MOVABLE. During the expand, the
>> second pageblock turns out to be of type MIGRATE_ISOLATE.
>>
>> The page allocator wouldn't have merged those types. It triggers a bit
>> too fast to be a race condition.
>>
>> It appears that MIGRATE_ISOLATE is simply set on the tail pageblock
>> while the head is on the list, and then stranded there.
>>
>> Could this be an issue in the page_isolation code? Maybe a range
>> rounding error?
>>
>> Zi Yan, does this ring a bell for you?
>
> Since isolation code works on pageblocks, a scenario I can think of
> is that alloc_contig_range() is given a range starting from that tail
> pageblock.
>
> Hmm, I also notice that move_freepages_block() called by
> set_migratetype_isolate() might change isolation range by your change.
> I wonder if reverting that behavior would fix the issue. Basically,
> do
>
> 	if (!zone_spans_pfn(zone, start))
> 		start = pfn;
>
> in prep_move_freepages_block(). Just a wild guess. Mike, do you mind
> giving it a try?
>
> Meanwhile, let me try to reproduce it and look into it deeper.
>
>>
>> I don't quite see how my patches could have caused this. But AFAICS we
>> also didn't have warnings for this scenario so it could be an old bug.
>>
>>>> Mike, could you describe the workload that is triggering this?
>>>
>>> This 'slightly different workload' is actually a slightly different
>>> environment.  Sorry for mis-speaking!  The slight difference is that this
>>> environment does not use the 'alloc hugetlb gigantic pages from CMA'
>>> (hugetlb_cma) feature that triggered the previous issue.
>>>
>>> This is still on a 16G VM.  Kernel command line here is:
>>> "BOOT_IMAGE=(hd0,msdos1)/vmlinuz-6.6.0-rc1-next-20230913+
>>> root=UUID=49c13301-2555-44dc-847b-caabe1d62bdf ro console=tty0
>>> console=ttyS0,115200 audit=0 selinux=0 transparent_hugepage=always
>>> hugetlb_free_vmemmap=on"
>>>
>>> The workload is just running this script:
>>> while true; do
>>>  echo 4 > /sys/kernel/mm/hugepages/hugepages-1048576kB/nr_hugepages
>>>  echo 4 > /sys/kernel/mm/hugepages/hugepages-1048576kB/demote
>>>  echo 0 > /sys/kernel/mm/hugepages/hugepages-2048kB/nr_hugepages
>>> done
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does this reproduce instantly and reliably?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is not 'instant' but will reproduce fairly reliably within a minute
>>> or so.
>>>
>>> Note that the 'echo 4 > .../hugepages-1048576kB/nr_hugepages' is going
>>> to end up calling alloc_contig_pages -> alloc_contig_range.  Those pages
>>> will eventually be freed via __free_pages(folio, 9).
>>
>> No luck reproducing this yet, but I have a question. In that crash
>> stack trace, the expand() is called via this:

I cannot reproduce it locally either. Do you mind sharing your config file?

Thanks.

--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi