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 8E8B5C77B61 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 13:08:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id BE0CE6B0071; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B90F66B0074; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:08:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A58DE6B0075; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:08:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0016.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.16]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94BDE6B0071 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin27.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59AE2ABBEA for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 13:08:20 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80716313160.27.9937E86 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by imf28.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60FB0C001A for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 13:08:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf28.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b="jL/D7hdU"; spf=pass (imf28.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.29 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1682341698; 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=meGbae7Rm1Dm4hStLawtNkGLd4DT75lkTKH92YM9kzw=; b=UMjqZ0ZhiIvCvuNYXRyfPplQs/S5qSy1sMBsOwm/7vZTO/a+66nJHqLDyXjx8hnl7uKNTS KQB5PlCwm9JibnGiq6rl1fz3sIxmD+d+sh3XLU3My+m7SmjjHyv4B9IEp3CmjkwDHC8F6U ZGmdfY1k9yZ5GfXTiWQisrEgFmK+9/s= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf28.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b="jL/D7hdU"; spf=pass (imf28.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.29 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1682341698; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=XlyP647EAhEU8JkBlJmF6GAfmMvFszXAHF85cRRNo59k2cbDmskb95q63tfjKCH4w25ncQ HE5J90Zzj4OLRAiNncFvH4h+asjQux2S2NjckYPeuZsCmZ+hdbBp+MtV0fz1qJ90EqkEbP 86B8Zgl4ASIbkxOsSr4Iw9D9kflGJ60= Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F30561FD80; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 13:08:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1682341697; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=meGbae7Rm1Dm4hStLawtNkGLd4DT75lkTKH92YM9kzw=; b=jL/D7hdUyKl6Al3oqEKoeE5tGlwTDV7xGM1hPtdruRmdKhYecVsbFjrmWTcQ1rZ4wJoYIj 6/+E0ys+HWQKJA8eEGuAWZEMhVIBXZDeTtEsBOQ3Bj4wlPlIDhn75fk3TMDOlem2yeNQye LIJIjDmL53VolPR9Jow+nOiM06+uKfQ= Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF98A13780; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 13:08:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id gD/uL0B/RmQjEAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Mon, 24 Apr 2023 13:08:16 +0000 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:08:15 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Baolin Wang Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, rppt@kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, vbabka@suse.cz, david@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm/page_alloc: add some comments to explain the possible hole in __pageblock_pfn_to_page() Message-ID: References: <9fc85cce8908938f4fd75ff50bc981c073779aa5.1682229876.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> <0733a4cf57109a4136de5ae46fac83fb15bdd528.1682229876.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> <9a20c0b5-9d8a-2b1d-570a-61c17a4ce5e8@linux.alibaba.com> <8d4059e3-2e6d-3f0c-2881-13b9bd07aa6c@linux.alibaba.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 60FB0C001A X-Stat-Signature: 843nwfekiakjap11afs59urj1rc6rojd X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08 X-HE-Tag: 1682341698-243219 X-HE-Meta: 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 kuNxQ5Ch W2x7GopjoIYiNxkpIq0Gm68W9w2pDqe5FqwhTCwpyvyKbYiVom8AFFQr6kPVujTRmcqUjNEVq8+GuIYCeDZLKvJJhlmQR5P5B1aWTXx7ljhy2wdWoBnf4oS9mRsZccsIeF5zLFrdOTF68jQOk8DWGOyoFqP+QHgaSKOcfQfk2vpdS+BJKtjh6YS7klEqq1gNR+CVfAyD9c0obq3f9mMxMvFt/tODBKU4o5soCWJdMj2vvQ06Sh04U3oCBAS2FwpILlgmlV6CRlVBnZZxjx4JiLLgjCZZ8kprkGjIad9sfWIXLMAQUQBCmyxqbzY98pwO2LD47XJYs098NNYAYUAhRH2A4uTf7eshUlG+ZD5avvDejYGg= 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 Mon 24-04-23 20:48:32, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > On 4/24/2023 8:08 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 24-04-23 19:40:30, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 4/24/2023 7:34 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Mon 24-04-23 19:20:43, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/24/2023 5:54 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > On Sun 23-04-23 18:59:11, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > > > > > Now the __pageblock_pfn_to_page() is used by set_zone_contiguous(), which > > > > > > > checks whether the given zone contains holes, and uses pfn_to_online_page() > > > > > > > to validate if the start pfn is online and valid, as well as using pfn_valid() > > > > > > > to validate the end pfn. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the __pageblock_pfn_to_page() function may return non-NULL even > > > > > > > if the end pfn of a pageblock is in a memory hole in some situations. For > > > > > > > example, if the pageblock order is MAX_ORDER, which will fall into 2 > > > > > > > sub-sections, and the end pfn of the pageblock may be hole even though > > > > > > > the start pfn is online and valid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This did not break anything until now, but the zone continuous is fragile > > > > > > > in this possible scenario. So as previous discussion[1], it is better to > > > > > > > add some comments to explain this possible issue in case there are some > > > > > > > future pfn walkers that rely on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/87r0sdsmr6.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Do I remember correctly you've had a specific configuration that would > > > > > > trigger this case? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I provided an example in previous thread [2] so show the > > > > > __pageblock_pfn_to_page() is fragile in some cases. > > > > > > > > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/52dfdd2e-9c99-eac4-233e-59919a24323e@linux.alibaba.com/ > > > > > > > > Please make it a part of the changelog. > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > Changes from v1: > > > > > > > - Update the comments per Ying and Mike, thanks. > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > mm/page_alloc.c | 7 +++++++ > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > > > > > > > index 6457b64fe562..9756d66f471c 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > > > > > > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > > > > > > > @@ -1502,6 +1502,13 @@ void __free_pages_core(struct page *page, unsigned int order) > > > > > > > * interleaving within a single pageblock. It is therefore sufficient to check > > > > > > > * the first and last page of a pageblock and avoid checking each individual > > > > > > > * page in a pageblock. > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > + * Note: the function may return non-NULL even if the end pfn of a pageblock > > > > > > > + * is in a memory hole in some situations. For example, if the pageblock > > > > > > > + * order is MAX_ORDER, which will fall into 2 sub-sections, and the end pfn > > > > > > > + * of the pageblock may be hole even though the start pfn is online and valid. > > > > > > > + * This did not break anything until now, but be careful about this possible > > > > > > > + * issue when checking whether all pfns of a pageblock are valid. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not really clear what you should be doing (other than to be > > > > > > careful which is not helpful much TBH) when you encounter this > > > > > > situation. If the reality changes and this would break in the future > > > > > > what would breakage look like? What should be done about that? > > > > > > > > > > That depends on what the future pfn walkers do, which may access some hole > > > > > memory with zero-init page frame. For example, if checking the > > > > > __PageMovable() for a zero-init page frame, that will crash the system. But > > > > > I can not list all the possible cases. > > > > > > > > > > So how about below words? > > > > > > > > > > * Note: the function may return non-NULL even if the end pfn of a pageblock > > > > > * is in a memory hole in some situations. For example, if the pageblock > > > > > * order is MAX_ORDER, which will fall into 2 sub-sections, and the end pfn > > > > > * of the pageblock may be hole even though the start pfn is online and > > > > > valid. > > > > > * This did not break anything until now, but be careful about this possible > > > > > * issue when checking whether all pfns of a pageblock are valid, that may > > > > > * lead to accessing empty page frame, and the worst case can crash the > > > > > system. > > > > > * So you should use pfn_to_onlie_page() instead of pfn_valid() to valid the > > > > > * pfns in a pageblock if such case happens. > > > > > > > > Does that mean that struct page is not initialized and PagePoisoned will > > > > trigger or it is just zero-prefilled? > > > > > > In the example I provided[2], these page frames of the hole memory are > > > zero-prefilled. > > > > OK, so make _that_ explicit in the comment. Essentially you want to say > > that there are cases where we have zero-initialized struct pages for > > memory holes. In general no pfn walker should touch a physical memory > > range for pfn where the struct page doesn't contain any metadata it > > recognizes. Zero fill struct pages do not contain any distinguishable > > state so that makes it less of a problem. > > > > All that being said I would reformulate the comment as follows: > > > > * Note: the function may return non-NULL struct page even for a > > * page block which contains a memory hole (i.e. there is no > > * physical memory for a subset of the pfn range). This should be > > * safe most of the time because struct pages are still zero > > * pre-filled and pfn walkers shouldn't touch any physical memory > > * range for which they do not recognize any specific metadata in > > * struct pages. > > Thanks. That makes sense to me. A trivial thing is I still want to add the > example in the comments to make it clear. Are you okay with below > description? > > + * Note: the function may return non-NULL struct page even for a page block > + * which contains a memory hole (i.e. there is no physical memory for a > subset > + * of the pfn range). For example, if the pageblock order is MAX_ORDER, > which > + * will fall into 2 sub-sections, and the end pfn of the pageblock may be > hole > + * even though the start pfn is online and valid. This should be safe most > of > + * the time because struct pages are still zero pre-filled and pfn walkers > + * shouldn't touch any physical memory range for which they do not > recognize > + * any specific metadata in struct pages. No objections of course. I do not see an additional value, quite honestly but if somebody does then it doesn't hurt. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs