Re: [v3 PATCH 2/2] mm: thp: check page_mapped instead of page_mapcount for split
From: Yang Shi <hidden>
Date: 2021-05-26 21:46:39
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 4:58 PM Hugh Dickins [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2021, Yang Shi wrote:quoted
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 3:06 PM Hugh Dickins [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Tue, 25 May 2021, Yang Shi wrote:quoted
When debugging the bug reported by Wang Yugui [1], try_to_unmap() may return false positive for PTE-mapped THP since page_mapcount() is used to check if the THP is unmapped, but it just checks compound mapount and head page's mapcount. If the THP is PTE-mapped and head page is not mapped, it may return false positive.But those false positives did not matter because there was a separate DEBUG_VM check later. It's good to have the link to Wang Yugui's report, but that paragraph is not really about this patch, as it has evolved now: this patch consolidates the two DEBUG_VM checks into one VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE.quoted
The try_to_unmap() has been changed to void function, so check page_mapped() after it. And changed BUG_ON to WARN_ON since it is not a fatal issue.The change from DEBUG_VM BUG to VM_WARN_ON_ONCE is the most important part of this, and the reason it's good for stable: and the patch title ought to highlight that, not the page_mapcount business.Will update the subject and the commit log accordingly.Thanks!quoted
quoted
quoted
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210412180659.B9E3.409509F4@e16-tech.com/ (local) Reviewed-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <redacted>This will be required Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org (but we don't want to Cc them on this mail). As I said on the other, I think this should be 1/2 not 2/2.Sure.Great.quoted
quoted
quoted
--- v3: Incorporated the comments from Hugh. Keep Zi Yan's reviewed-by tag since there is no fundamental change against v2. v2: Removed dead code and updated the comment of try_to_unmap() per Zi Yan. mm/huge_memory.c | 17 +++++------------ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c index 80fe642d742d..72d81d8e01b1 100644 --- a/mm/huge_memory.c +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c@@ -2343,6 +2343,8 @@ static void unmap_page(struct page *page) ttu_flags |= TTU_SPLIT_FREEZE; try_to_unmap(page, ttu_flags); + + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(page_mapped(page), page);There is one useful piece of information that dump_page() will not show: total_mapcount(page). Is there a way of crafting that into the output? Not with the macros available, I think. Maybe we should be optimistic and assume I already have the fixes, so not worth trying to refine the message (but I'm not entirely convinced of that!). The trouble with if (VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(page_mapped(page), page)) pr_warn("total_mapcount:%d\n", total_mapcount(page)); is that it's printed regardless of the ONCEness. Another "trouble" is that it's printed so long after the page_mapped(page) check that it may be 0 by now - but one can see that as itself informative.We should be able to make dump_page() print total mapcount, right? The dump_page() should be just called in some error paths so taking some extra overhead to dump more information seems harmless, or am I missing something? Of course, this can be done in a separate patch.I didn't want to ask that of you, but yes, if you're willing to add total_mapcount() into dump_page(), I think that would be ideal; and could be helpful for other cases too. Looking through total_mapcount(), I think it's safe to call from dump_page() - I always worry about extending crash info with something that depends on a maybe-corrupted pointer which would generate a further crash and either recurse or truncate the output - but please check that carefully.
Yes, it is possible. If the THP is being split, some VM_BUG_* might be triggered if total_mapcount() is called. But it is still feasible to print total mapcount as long as we implement a more robust version for dump_page().
Yes, a separate patch please: which can come later on, and no need for stable for that one, but good to know it's coming. Thanks, Hugh