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 0527CC27C4F for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 7273B6B0088; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 05:16:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6D6B26B0089; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 05:16:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 59E5F6B008A; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 05:16:06 -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 3B8AA6B0088 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 05:16:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin15.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12D680D6B for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:16:05 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82272483090.15.8E6C25D Received: from mail-lj1-f174.google.com (mail-lj1-f174.google.com [209.85.208.174]) by imf19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2DF61A0003 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:16:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf19.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=CcjcBcbm; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (imf19.hostedemail.com: domain of urezki@gmail.com designates 209.85.208.174 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=urezki@gmail.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1719393346; 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=Eto0wDQ+VnHOvIV84i+qZbXGq9+6luYSO1FuNV/i1EM=; b=DZk21Yb0mr/LjoEKqAKD6oeJrb+Sq3n6lgmLTaj0291uLAfQBP5TYMCfeGp1aAdtSYhbFo mnCQ/a6wiFmsn5gj1YogZfe3j4MD7OGNGBKH7X7pyqoMfQpLJ+9oeCMssaWuOkJPTQne5D PC2JBcg1c0ipoiE6gGig9/AJt5p9V4A= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1719393346; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=1nYYOrsm/nu8Ba1d8D1snR6/PMp9T/oNeFBGPq4oJNDAM2AosMhGG1Zt0qyDAe1EAkKV2N S6elBTEU8/2WXABT7Oa2uC0YWfqG0o2vNwnynHpmGQMYXZDC70gGaHrlC5qfoOeRW8l/sz TkMyYdzSbfVLQp6MjFAUE/VZ6z6wLNI= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf19.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=CcjcBcbm; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (imf19.hostedemail.com: domain of urezki@gmail.com designates 209.85.208.174 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=urezki@gmail.com Received: by mail-lj1-f174.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2ebe40673d8so73971461fa.3 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 02:16:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1719393362; x=1719998162; darn=kvack.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Eto0wDQ+VnHOvIV84i+qZbXGq9+6luYSO1FuNV/i1EM=; b=CcjcBcbm1WnI3WZNPNJ9o55GoXmHPmaNmBdm5Do/ZF7NmJGYPiXqg/ZKFVp/tLxB34 sxZhfsLSP0xDzeYgtVsQPs9eLPCi8UHMMsEUfY7KNOMJMkwjgCi3067AhYR7nYs1kece k3WmnHbpmE8TbFntvSuBEFsUhmGROBCkMAlasZ3nu4H8RFYXx8ggHYuBpY0ZsT8RsM4y /Nzb2n3nnoXSvPinFfmgpkplLb0ZJItgiKiRySQ2rD2esEyutjD1yMwxOihXNSHJcqo1 RMjyld10TcKjhbx923yTQBWjG3LYWwbEwu5a9gQe3UqWtt23/WAdR7DKOZLi0pi61HcF 4uHA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1719393362; x=1719998162; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Eto0wDQ+VnHOvIV84i+qZbXGq9+6luYSO1FuNV/i1EM=; b=s9Kiv9FHXBjEbWRjOk8CX9zPrG7mvL3dmNywPdA5eJSZFHspsxN0ukXQG+fqp95III wFZoxlrbrzUqmvwHxGaaA1r+UltKxiH2rqba5X8hxrPK/asULqxLr2n9HQU9PM29zfkc Q8pq46FDh22r7+zMvg57K400d0lLqLSkF07kU2mppGpAQejv7jFgcqqklhWjxeC0NkTN 6IinpWRO2dpjEo206KMyXxLhtlECBFFACffQ8wp3BY4OHQ0yKKz1dlYU6l/PaAnn+a76 GYs9TIjx/a1+oZa3nDnRj5kMiNDT50OZX6pkGJjOTyQdFimagg8CCHo4IYRbBO0CVUgt gPsQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUf7ajXo5SUx1r/0pJQgs0uD9RAUcXJIn6BbCZ6A/LUVzxyPbFrsU2cnHAdBlKCuifwB8mZQgfGhX+pTT9RAtt1xpE= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzJ0gYKTY+6vMneUBI5HfrqNkI5NVSUcHIwR8ck9Js1+zhnizch oKMt6cEzwKghmKMrqoLM8ln0CuZoU0/IEuPPaL3Tgwx2sX3N6ieh X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH3CGPS2TZW4EbFb0VD5oUjqGvL3TfaspIt5F5OYeRa/0TR/mOSL97U7IIWNPSpBzA7tuqQqw== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3218:0:b0:2ec:55f3:40d with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2ec5b346102mr56875141fa.30.1719393361493; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 02:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc636 (host-90-233-219-252.mobileonline.telia.com. [90.233.219.252]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 38308e7fff4ca-2ec53b7c876sm11450641fa.62.2024.06.26.02.16.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 26 Jun 2024 02:16:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:15:58 +0200 To: Hailong Liu Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , Baoquan He , Nick Bowler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux regressions mailing list , linux-mm@kvack.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: PROBLEM: kernel crashes when running xfsdump since ~6.4 Message-ID: References: <20240626051206.mx2r4iy3wpexykay@oppo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240626051206.mx2r4iy3wpexykay@oppo.com> X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: D2DF61A0003 X-Stat-Signature: 8ssoxcy4cd8gxuj7doeuu5hk9iecba81 X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1719393363-65523 X-HE-Meta: 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 e7IHxG6H +butFcUFi2ITupgA4ejp5bGM3qTqgssATENrGdl8+BO4F8RZoNt490IUsuyEdDoHrivun/Hu/QRWp6ddwViO8tyeK+nTfVwKP5kvWmYIbF3panMYoT+mRJYo/NFH8S0ZJDWAraI2CaWcSFSW1G2JR+jiVvCJ6ffG6qv8K9WIQzWYe2bmk/B+IHHEbc/1EKRYssBRWptoHrcg+WmpLkS61hm09VQ6gbykPJxWWjL4LjCFK7UYi1c2ZU4htkQO9YflUuXR4p3B9UTNoLOZ0uRSsSzAxeWokxizt9Uec5kPEk7NujhFK3A5UbAXFBcS6T9i6V/D6wdG00qy3y6uzI1isYhaFPfKwRLU3kysDGsGTGX9tMHv3U6iPawezEg== X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000293, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 01:12:06PM +0800, Hailong Liu wrote: > On Tue, 25. Jun 22:05, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > > > /** > > > > > > > * cpumask_next - get the next cpu in a cpumask > > > > > > > * @n: the cpu prior to the place to search (i.e. return will be > @n) > > > > > > > * @srcp: the cpumask pointer > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > * Return: >= nr_cpu_ids if no further cpus set. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, I got what you mean. In the vbq case, it may not have chance to get > > > > > > a return number as nr_cpu_ids. Becuase the hashed index limits the > > > > > > range to [0, nr_cpu_ids-1], and cpu_possible(index) will guarantee it > > > > > > won't be the highest cpu number [nr_cpu_ids-1] since CPU[nr_cpu_ids-1] must > > > > > > be possible CPU. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do I miss some corner cases? > > > > > > > > > > > Right. We guarantee that a highest CPU is available by doing: % nr_cpu_ids. > > > > > So we do not need to use *next_wrap() variant. You do not miss anything :) > > > > > > > > > > Hailong Liu has proposed more simpler version: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > > > > > index 11fe5ea208aa..e1e63ffb9c57 100644 > > > > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > > > > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > > > > > @@ -1994,8 +1994,9 @@ static struct xarray * > > > > > addr_to_vb_xa(unsigned long addr) > > > > > { > > > > > int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % num_possible_cpus(); > > > > > + int cpu = cpumask_nth(index, cpu_possible_mask); > > > > > > > > > > - return &per_cpu(vmap_block_queue, index).vmap_blocks; > > > > > + return &per_cpu(vmap_block_queue, cpu).vmap_blocks; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which just takes a next CPU if an index is not set in the cpu_possible_mask. > > > > > > > > > > The only thing that can be updated in the patch is to replace num_possible_cpu() > > > > > by the nr_cpu_ids. > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? I think we need to fix it by a minor change so it is > > > > > easier to back-port on stable kernels. > > > > > > > > Yeah, sounds good since the regresson commit is merged in v6.3. > > > > Please feel free to post this and the hash array patch separately for > > > > formal reviewing. > > > > > > > Agreed! The patch about hash array i will post later. > > > > > > > By the way, when I am replying this mail, I check the cpumask_nth() > > > > again. I doubt it may take more checking then cpu_possible(), given most > > > > of systems don't have gaps in cpu_possible_mask. I could be dizzy at > > > > this moment. > > > > > > > > static inline unsigned int cpumask_nth(unsigned int cpu, const struct cpumask *srcp) > > > > { > > > > return find_nth_bit(cpumask_bits(srcp), small_cpumask_bits, cpumask_check(cpu)); > > > > } > > > > > > > Yep, i do not think it is a big problem based on your noted fact. > > > > > Checked. There is a difference: > > > > 1. Default > > > > > > ... > > + 15.95% 6.05% [kernel] [k] __vmap_pages_range_noflush > > + 15.91% 1.74% [kernel] [k] addr_to_vb_xa <--------------- > > + 15.13% 12.05% [kernel] [k] vunmap_p4d_range > > + 14.17% 13.38% [kernel] [k] __find_nth_bit <-------------- > > + 10.62% 0.00% [kernel] [k] ret_from_fork_asm > > + 10.62% 0.00% [kernel] [k] ret_from_fork > > + 10.62% 0.00% [kernel] [k] kthread > > ... > > > > > > 2. Check if cpu_possible() and then fallback to cpumask_nth() if not > > > > > > ... > > + 6.84% 0.29% [kernel] [k] alloc_vmap_area > > + 6.80% 6.70% [kernel] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath > > + 4.24% 0.09% [kernel] [k] free_vmap_block > > + 2.41% 2.38% [kernel] [k] addr_to_vb_xa <----------- > > + 1.94% 1.91% [kernel] [k] xas_start > > ... > > > > > > It is _worth_ to check if an index is in possible mask: > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > > index 45e1506d58c3..af20f78c2cbf 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > > @@ -2542,7 +2542,10 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct vmap_block_queue, vmap_block_queue); > > static struct xarray * > > addr_to_vb_xa(unsigned long addr) > > { > > - int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % num_possible_cpus(); > > + int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % nr_cpu_ids; > IIUC, use nr_cpu_ids here maybe incorrect. > > take b101 as example, nr_cpu_ids is 3. if index is 2 cpumask_nth(2, cpu_possible_mask); > might return 64. > But then a CPU2 becomes possible? Cutting by % nr_cpu_ids generates values < nr_cpu_ids. So, last CPU is always possible and we never do cpumask_nth() on a last possible CPU. What i miss here? -- Uladzislau Rezki