Re: arm32: panic in move_freepages (Was [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: drop pfn_valid_within() and simplify pfn_valid())
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Date: 2021-05-07 10:30:46
Also in:
kvmarm, linux-arm-kernel, lkml
On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 03:17:08PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
On 2021/5/6 20:47, Kefeng Wang wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
no, the CONFIG_ARM_LPAE is not set, and yes with same panic at move_freepages at start_pfn/end_pfn [de600, de7ff], [de600000, de7ff000] : pfn =de600, page =ef3cc000, page-flags = ffffffff, pfn2phy = de600000quoted
quoted
__free_memory_core, range: 0xb0200000 - 0xc0000000, pfn: b0200 - b0200 __free_memory_core, range: 0xcc000000 - 0xdca00000, pfn: cc000 - b0200 __free_memory_core, range: 0xde700000 - 0xdea00000, pfn: de700 - b0200Hmm, [de600, de7ff] is not added to the free lists which is correct. But then it's unclear how the page for de600 gets to move_freepages()... Can't say I have any bright ideas to try here...Are we missing some checks (e.g., PageReserved()) that pfn_valid_within() would have "caught" before?Unless I'm missing something the crash happens in __rmqueue_fallback(): do_steal: page = get_page_from_free_area(area, fallback_mt); steal_suitable_fallback(zone, page, alloc_flags, start_migratetype, can_steal); -> move_freepages() -> BUG() So a page from free area should be sane as the freed range was never added it to the free lists.Sorry for the late response due to the vacation. The pfn in range [de600, de7ff] won't be added into the free lists via __free_memory_core(), but the pfn could be added into freelists via free_highmem_page() I add some debug[1] in add_to_free_list(), we could see the calltrace free_highpages, range_pfn [b0200, c0000], range_addr [b0200000, c0000000] free_highpages, range_pfn [cc000, dca00], range_addr [cc000000, dca00000] free_highpages, range_pfn [de700, dea00], range_addr [de700000, dea00000] add_to_free_list, ===> pfn = de700 ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at mm/page_alloc.c:900 add_to_free_list+0x8c/0xec pfn = de700 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.10.0+ #48 Hardware name: Hisilicon A9 [<c010a600>] (show_stack) from [<c04b21c4>] (dump_stack+0x9c/0xc0) [<c04b21c4>] (dump_stack) from [<c011c708>] (__warn+0xc0/0xec) [<c011c708>] (__warn) from [<c011c7a8>] (warn_slowpath_fmt+0x74/0xa4) [<c011c7a8>] (warn_slowpath_fmt) from [<c023721c>] (add_to_free_list+0x8c/0xec) [<c023721c>] (add_to_free_list) from [<c0237e00>] (free_pcppages_bulk+0x200/0x278) [<c0237e00>] (free_pcppages_bulk) from [<c0238d14>] (free_unref_page+0x58/0x68) [<c0238d14>] (free_unref_page) from [<c023bb54>] (free_highmem_page+0xc/0x50) [<c023bb54>] (free_highmem_page) from [<c070620c>] (mem_init+0x21c/0x254) [<c070620c>] (mem_init) from [<c0700b38>] (start_kernel+0x258/0x5c0) [<c0700b38>] (start_kernel) from [<00000000>] (0x0) so any idea?If pfn = 0xde700, due to the pageblock_nr_pages = 0x200, then the start_pfn,end_pfn passed to move_freepages() will be [de600, de7ff], but the range of [de600,de700] without ‘struct page' will lead to this panic when pfn_valid_within not enabled if no HOLES_IN_ZONE, and the same issue will occurred in isolate_freepages_block(), maybe
I think your analysis is correct except one minor detail. With the #ifdef fix I've proposed earlieri [1] the memmap for [0xde600, 0xde700] should not be freed so there should be a struct page. Did you check what parts of the memmap are actually freed with this patch applied? Would you get a panic if you add dump_page(pfn_to_page(0xde600), ""); say, in the end of memblock_free_all()?
there are some scene, so I select HOLES_IN_ZONE in ARCH_HISI(ARM) to solve this issue in our 5.10, should we select HOLES_IN_ZONE in all ARM or only in ARCH_HISI, any better solution? Thanks.
I don't think that HOLES_IN_ZONE is the right solution. I believe that we must keep the memory map aligned on pageblock boundaries. That's surely not the case for SPARSEMEM as of now, and if my fix is not enough we need to find where it went wrong. Besides, I'd say that if it is possible to update your firmware to make the memory layout reported to the kernel less, hmm, esoteric, you would hit less corner cases. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YIpY8TXCSc7Lfa2Z@kernel.org (local) -- Sincerely yours, Mike.