mm/hugetlb.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
When I did memory failure tests recently, below warning occurs:
DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(1)
WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 1011 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:232 __lock_acquire+0xccb/0x1ca0
Modules linked in: mce_inject hwpoison_inject
CPU: 8 PID: 1011 Comm: bash Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.9.0-rc3-next-20240410-00012-gdb69f219f4be #3
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:__lock_acquire+0xccb/0x1ca0
RSP: 0018:ffffa7a1c7fe3bd0 EFLAGS: 00000082
RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: eb851eb853975fcf RCX: ffffa1ce5fc1c9c8
RDX: 00000000ffffffd8 RSI: 0000000000000027 RDI: ffffa1ce5fc1c9c0
RBP: ffffa1c6865d3280 R08: ffffffffb0f570a8 R09: 0000000000009ffb
R10: 0000000000000286 R11: ffffffffb0f2ad50 R12: ffffa1c6865d3d10
R13: ffffa1c6865d3c70 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000004
FS: 00007ff9f32aa740(0000) GS:ffffa1ce5fc00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00007ff9f3134ba0 CR3: 00000008484e4000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
Call Trace:
<TASK>
lock_acquire+0xbe/0x2d0
_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3a/0x60
hugepage_subpool_put_pages.part.0+0xe/0xc0
free_huge_folio+0x253/0x3f0
dissolve_free_huge_page+0x147/0x210
__page_handle_poison+0x9/0x70
memory_failure+0x4e6/0x8c0
hard_offline_page_store+0x55/0xa0
kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x12c/0x1d0
vfs_write+0x380/0x540
ksys_write+0x64/0xe0
do_syscall_64+0xbc/0x1d0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
RIP: 0033:0x7ff9f3114887
RSP: 002b:00007ffecbacb458 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000000000000000c RCX: 00007ff9f3114887
RDX: 000000000000000c RSI: 0000564494164e10 RDI: 0000000000000001
RBP: 0000564494164e10 R08: 00007ff9f31d1460 R09: 000000007fffffff
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 000000000000000c
R13: 00007ff9f321b780 R14: 00007ff9f3217600 R15: 00007ff9f3216a00
</TASK>
Kernel panic - not syncing: kernel: panic_on_warn set ...
CPU: 8 PID: 1011 Comm: bash Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.9.0-rc3-next-20240410-00012-gdb69f219f4be #3
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
<TASK>
panic+0x326/0x350
check_panic_on_warn+0x4f/0x50
__warn+0x98/0x190
report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0
handle_bug+0x3d/0x70
exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70
asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
RIP: 0010:__lock_acquire+0xccb/0x1ca0
RSP: 0018:ffffa7a1c7fe3bd0 EFLAGS: 00000082
RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: eb851eb853975fcf RCX: ffffa1ce5fc1c9c8
RDX: 00000000ffffffd8 RSI: 0000000000000027 RDI: ffffa1ce5fc1c9c0
RBP: ffffa1c6865d3280 R08: ffffffffb0f570a8 R09: 0000000000009ffb
R10: 0000000000000286 R11: ffffffffb0f2ad50 R12: ffffa1c6865d3d10
R13: ffffa1c6865d3c70 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000004
lock_acquire+0xbe/0x2d0
_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3a/0x60
hugepage_subpool_put_pages.part.0+0xe/0xc0
free_huge_folio+0x253/0x3f0
dissolve_free_huge_page+0x147/0x210
__page_handle_poison+0x9/0x70
memory_failure+0x4e6/0x8c0
hard_offline_page_store+0x55/0xa0
kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x12c/0x1d0
vfs_write+0x380/0x540
ksys_write+0x64/0xe0
do_syscall_64+0xbc/0x1d0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
RIP: 0033:0x7ff9f3114887
RSP: 002b:00007ffecbacb458 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000000000000000c RCX: 00007ff9f3114887
RDX: 000000000000000c RSI: 0000564494164e10 RDI: 0000000000000001
RBP: 0000564494164e10 R08: 00007ff9f31d1460 R09: 000000007fffffff
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 000000000000000c
R13: 00007ff9f321b780 R14: 00007ff9f3217600 R15: 00007ff9f3216a00
</TASK>
After git bisecting and digging into the code, I believe the root cause
is that _deferred_list field of folio is unioned with _hugetlb_subpool
field. In __update_and_free_hugetlb_folio(), folio->_deferred_list is
initialized leading to corrupted folio->_hugetlb_subpool when folio
is hugetlb. Later free_huge_folio() will use _hugetlb_subpool and
above warning happens.
But it is assumed hugetlb flag must have been cleared when calling
folio_put() in update_and_free_hugetlb_folio(). This assumption is
broken due to below race:
CPU1 CPU2
dissolve_free_huge_page update_and_free_pages_bulk
update_and_free_hugetlb_folio hugetlb_vmemmap_restore_folios
folio_clear_hugetlb_vmemmap_optimized
clear_flag = folio_test_hugetlb_vmemmap_optimized
if (clear_flag) <-- False, it's already cleared.
__folio_clear_hugetlb(folio) <-- Hugetlb is not cleared.
folio_put
free_huge_folio <-- free_the_page is expected.
list_for_each_entry()
__folio_clear_hugetlb <-- Too late.
Fix this issue by checking whether folio is hugetlb directly instead
of checking clear_flag to close the race window.
Fixes: 32c877191e02 ("hugetlb: do not clear hugetlb dtor until allocating vmemmap")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
---
v2:
The root cause should be above race, so rework the fix.
---
mm/hugetlb.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index d748664bb2c9..3b7d5ddc32ad 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -1773,7 +1773,7 @@ static void __update_and_free_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h,
* If vmemmap pages were allocated above, then we need to clear the
* hugetlb flag under the hugetlb lock.
*/
- if (clear_flag) {
+ if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) {
spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
__folio_clear_hugetlb(folio);
spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
--
2.33.0On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 04:58:19PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> When I did memory failure tests recently, below warning occurs:
>
...
>
> Fix this issue by checking whether folio is hugetlb directly instead
> of checking clear_flag to close the race window.
>
> Fixes: 32c877191e02 ("hugetlb: do not clear hugetlb dtor until allocating vmemmap")
> CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:58:19 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
> When I did memory failure tests recently, below warning occurs:
>
> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(1)
> WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 1011 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:232 __lock_acquire+0xccb/0x1ca0
> Modules linked in: mce_inject hwpoison_inject
> CPU: 8 PID: 1011 Comm: bash Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.9.0-rc3-next-20240410-00012-gdb69f219f4be #3
>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -1773,7 +1773,7 @@ static void __update_and_free_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h,
> * If vmemmap pages were allocated above, then we need to clear the
> * hugetlb flag under the hugetlb lock.
> */
> - if (clear_flag) {
> + if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) {
> spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
> __folio_clear_hugetlb(folio);
> spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
Please let's prepare backportable fixes against current mainline, not
mm-unstable. Because fixes against current -rcX and earlier will be
upstreamed ahead of the mm-unstable and mm-stable material.
I did this:
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c~mm-hugetlb-fix-debug_locks_warn_on1-when-dissolve_free_hugetlb_folio
+++ a/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -1781,7 +1781,7 @@ static void __update_and_free_hugetlb_fo
* If vmemmap pages were allocated above, then we need to clear the
* hugetlb destructor under the hugetlb lock.
*/
- if (clear_dtor) {
+ if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) {
spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
__clear_hugetlb_destructor(h, folio);
spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
_
On 2024/4/20 5:11, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:58:19 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>> When I did memory failure tests recently, below warning occurs:
>>
>> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(1)
>> WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 1011 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:232 __lock_acquire+0xccb/0x1ca0
>> Modules linked in: mce_inject hwpoison_inject
>> CPU: 8 PID: 1011 Comm: bash Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.9.0-rc3-next-20240410-00012-gdb69f219f4be #3
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> @@ -1773,7 +1773,7 @@ static void __update_and_free_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h,
>> * If vmemmap pages were allocated above, then we need to clear the
>> * hugetlb flag under the hugetlb lock.
>> */
>> - if (clear_flag) {
>> + if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) {
>> spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>> __folio_clear_hugetlb(folio);
>> spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>
> Please let's prepare backportable fixes against current mainline, not
> mm-unstable. Because fixes against current -rcX and earlier will be
> upstreamed ahead of the mm-unstable and mm-stable material.
Do you mean I need to send one fixup patch against mm-unstable and another
one against current mainline?
>
>
> I did this:
>
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c~mm-hugetlb-fix-debug_locks_warn_on1-when-dissolve_free_hugetlb_folio
> +++ a/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -1781,7 +1781,7 @@ static void __update_and_free_hugetlb_fo
> * If vmemmap pages were allocated above, then we need to clear the
> * hugetlb destructor under the hugetlb lock.
> */
> - if (clear_dtor) {
> + if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) {
This looks good to me. Thanks for doing this. :)
Thanks.
.
> spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
> __clear_hugetlb_destructor(h, folio);
> spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
> _
>
> .
>
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:13:06 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 2024/4/20 5:11, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:58:19 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> >> When I did memory failure tests recently, below warning occurs:
> >>
> >> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(1)
> >> WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 1011 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:232 __lock_acquire+0xccb/0x1ca0
> >> Modules linked in: mce_inject hwpoison_inject
> >> CPU: 8 PID: 1011 Comm: bash Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.9.0-rc3-next-20240410-00012-gdb69f219f4be #3
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> >> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> >> @@ -1773,7 +1773,7 @@ static void __update_and_free_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h,
> >> * If vmemmap pages were allocated above, then we need to clear the
> >> * hugetlb flag under the hugetlb lock.
> >> */
> >> - if (clear_flag) {
> >> + if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) {
> >> spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
> >> __folio_clear_hugetlb(folio);
> >> spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
> >
> > Please let's prepare backportable fixes against current mainline, not
> > mm-unstable. Because fixes against current -rcX and earlier will be
> > upstreamed ahead of the mm-unstable and mm-stable material.
>
> Do you mean I need to send one fixup patch against mm-unstable and another
> one against current mainline?
Against mainline should suffice. I normally fix up the subsequent
merge/build fallout. If that gets too risky I'll ask for help or I'll
outright drop mm-unstable patches and shall ask for a redo of those.
This is rare.
On 2024/4/23 5:21, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:13:06 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2024/4/20 5:11, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:58:19 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When I did memory failure tests recently, below warning occurs:
>>>>
>>>> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(1)
>>>> WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 1011 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:232 __lock_acquire+0xccb/0x1ca0
>>>> Modules linked in: mce_inject hwpoison_inject
>>>> CPU: 8 PID: 1011 Comm: bash Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.9.0-rc3-next-20240410-00012-gdb69f219f4be #3
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>>>> @@ -1773,7 +1773,7 @@ static void __update_and_free_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h,
>>>> * If vmemmap pages were allocated above, then we need to clear the
>>>> * hugetlb flag under the hugetlb lock.
>>>> */
>>>> - if (clear_flag) {
>>>> + if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) {
>>>> spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>>>> __folio_clear_hugetlb(folio);
>>>> spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>>>
>>> Please let's prepare backportable fixes against current mainline, not
>>> mm-unstable. Because fixes against current -rcX and earlier will be
>>> upstreamed ahead of the mm-unstable and mm-stable material.
>>
>> Do you mean I need to send one fixup patch against mm-unstable and another
>> one against current mainline?
>
> Against mainline should suffice. I normally fix up the subsequent
> merge/build fallout. If that gets too risky I'll ask for help or I'll
> outright drop mm-unstable patches and shall ask for a redo of those.
> This is rare.
I see. Many thanks for your explanation. :)
Thanks.
.
>
> .
>
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.