lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [BUG?] memory hotplug: include/linux/radix-tree.h:145 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
    On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 09:28:28AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
    > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 08:39:12AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
    > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 09:04:13AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
    > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Gerald Schaefer
    > > > <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com> wrote:
    > > > > I got the same warning now after increasing /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages, see
    > > > > below. Both cases are easily reproducible: memory unplug with big page cache,
    > > > > or adding large pages during run-time.
    > > > >
    > > > > ===================================================
    > > > > [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
    > > > > ---------------------------------------------------
    > > > > include/linux/radix-tree.h:145 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
    > > > >
    > > > > other info that might help us debug this:
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
    > > > > 1 lock held by bash/761:
    > > > >  #0:  (&(&inode->i_data.tree_lock)->rlock){..-.-.}, at: [<00000000002263ae>] migrate_page_move_mapping+0x4a/0x2d8
    > > > >
    > > > > stack backtrace:
    > > > > CPU: 1 Not tainted 2.6.37-rc6 #4
    > > > > Process bash (pid: 761, task: 00000000181b5540, ksp: 00000000181bb7f8)
    > > > > 00000000181bb818 00000000181bb798 0000000000000002 0000000000000000
    > > > >       00000000181bb838 00000000181bb7b0 00000000181bb7b0 000000000056bafa
    > > > >       0000000000000000 000000003f42bdf0 0000000000000002 000000001c43be30
    > > > >       000003e00000000d 000003e00000000c 00000000181bb800 0000000000000000
    > > > >       0000000000000000 0000000000100bfa 00000000181bb798 00000000181bb7d8
    > > > > Call Trace:
    > > > > ([<0000000000100b02>] show_trace+0xee/0x144)
    > > > >  [<000000000022654e>] migrate_page_move_mapping+0x1ea/0x2d8
    > > > >  [<0000000000226c80>] migrate_page+0x38/0x68
    > > > >  [<0000000000226d9a>] move_to_new_page+0xea/0x2bc
    > > > >  [<000000000022785a>] migrate_pages+0x496/0x568
    > > > >  [<000000000021e24e>] compact_zone+0x432/0x7d8
    > > > >  [<000000000021e772>] compact_zone_order+0x9e/0xbc
    > > > >  [<000000000021ed52>] try_to_compact_pages+0x1ba/0x24c
    > > > >  [<00000000001e1afa>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x86a/0xa64
    > > > >  [<000000000021c80c>] alloc_fresh_huge_page.clone.2+0x68/0x18c
    > > > >  [<000000000021cc4c>] set_max_huge_pages.clone.0+0xa4/0x1ac
    > > > >  [<000000000021ce06>] hugetlb_sysctl_handler+0xb2/0xcc
    > > > >  [<00000000002a6572>] proc_sys_call_handler+0xe6/0x10c
    > > > >  [<00000000002a65be>] proc_sys_write+0x26/0x34
    > > > >  [<00000000002336e0>] vfs_write+0xac/0x18c
    > > > >  [<00000000002338bc>] SyS_write+0x58/0xa8
    > > > >  [<0000000000113976>] sysc_noemu+0x16/0x1c
    > > > >  [<0000020000162edc>] 0x20000162edc
    > > > > INFO: lockdep is turned off.
    > > > >
    > > > > I honestly do not understand 100% why this is a false positive, seeing that
    > > > > e.g. find_get_page() will also use radix_tree_deref_slot(), holding only the
    > > > > rcu_read_lock, while migrate_page_move_mapping() has no rcu_read_lock() but
    > > > > the &mapping->tree_lock instead. So I'm not quite sure how to fix this
    > > > > properly, but simply adding rcu_read_lock/unlock() to the affected code paths,
    > > > > even if it is not necessary for synchronization, would get rid of the warning,
    > > > > like in the following patch. Any ideas?
    > > >
    > > > In case of anon page, we hold rcu_read_lock in unmap_and_move.
    > > > The problem is file-backed page. In case of that, we hold lock_page
    > > > and mapping->tree_lock as update-side lock.
    > > > So we don't need rcu_read_lock.
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > ---
    > > > >  fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c |    2 ++
    > > > >  mm/migrate.c         |    4 ++++
    > > > >  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
    > > > >
    > > > > --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
    > > > > +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
    > > > > @@ -580,7 +580,9 @@ static int hugetlbfs_migrate_page(struct
    > > > >  {
    > > > >        int rc;
    > > > >
    > > > > +       rcu_read_lock();
    > > > >        rc = migrate_huge_page_move_mapping(mapping, newpage, page);
    > > > > +       rcu_read_unlock();
    > > > >        if (rc)
    > > > >                return rc;
    > > > >        migrate_page_copy(newpage, page);
    > > > > --- a/mm/migrate.c
    > > > > +++ b/mm/migrate.c
    > > > > @@ -417,7 +417,9 @@ int migrate_page(struct address_space *m
    > > > >
    > > > >        BUG_ON(PageWriteback(page));    /* Writeback must be complete */
    > > > >
    > > > > +       rcu_read_lock();
    > > > >        rc = migrate_page_move_mapping(mapping, newpage, page);
    > > > > +       rcu_read_unlock();
    > > > >
    > > > >        if (rc)
    > > > >                return rc;
    > > > > @@ -444,7 +446,9 @@ int buffer_migrate_page(struct address_s
    > > > >
    > > > >        head = page_buffers(page);
    > > > >
    > > > > +       rcu_read_lock();
    > > > >        rc = migrate_page_move_mapping(mapping, newpage, page);
    > > > > +       rcu_read_unlock();
    > > > >
    > > > >        if (rc)
    > > > >                return rc;
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > How about this?
    > > > Maybe Paul have better idea.
    > > > (It's apparently be word-wrapped.)
    > > >
    > >
    > > heh, I wrote a patch almost identical to this and ran it overnight for testing
    > > (test was a memory consumer running while a parallel process grew and shrunk
    > > the hugepage pool). It passes but that is hardly a surprise. We differed
    > > slightly in a number of respects though.
    > >
    >
    > For completeness, this is what I tested last night. There are two "confirms"
    > in the changelog that I intended to work out today but maybe someone can
    > confirm faster.
    >
    > ==== CUT HERE ====
    > mm: migration: Use rcu_dereference_protected when dereferencing the radix tree slot during file page migration
    >
    > migrate_pages() -> unmap_and_move() only calls rcu_read_lock() for anonymous
    > pages, as introduced by git commit 989f89c57e6361e7d16fbd9572b5da7d313b073d.
    > The point of the RCU protection there is part of getting a stable reference
    > to anon_vma and is only held for anon pages as file pages are locked
    > which is sufficient protection against freeing.
    >
    > However, while a file page's mapping is being migrated, the radix tree
    > is double checked to ensure it is the expected page. This uses
    > radix_tree_deref_slot() -> rcu_dereference() without the RCU lock held
    > triggering the following warning.
    >
    > [ 173.674290] ===================================================
    > [ 173.676016] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
    > [ 173.676016] ---------------------------------------------------
    > [ 173.676016] include/linux/radix-tree.h:145 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
    > [ 173.676016]
    > [ 173.676016] other info that might help us debug this:
    > [ 173.676016]
    > [ 173.676016]
    > [ 173.676016] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
    > [ 173.676016] 1 lock held by hugeadm/2899:
    > [ 173.676016] #0: (&(&inode->i_data.tree_lock)->rlock){..-.-.}, at: [<c10e3d2b>] migrate_page_move_mapping+0x40/0x1ab
    > [ 173.676016]
    > [ 173.676016] stack backtrace:
    > [ 173.676016] Pid: 2899, comm: hugeadm Not tainted 2.6.37-rc5-autobuild
    > [ 173.676016] Call Trace:
    > [ 173.676016] [<c128cc01>] ? printk+0x14/0x1b
    > [ 173.676016] [<c1063502>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x7d/0x86
    > [ 173.676016] [<c10e3db5>] migrate_page_move_mapping+0xca/0x1ab
    > [ 173.676016] [<c10e41ad>] migrate_page+0x23/0x39
    > [ 173.676016] [<c10e491b>] buffer_migrate_page+0x22/0x107
    > [ 173.676016] [<c10e48f9>] ? buffer_migrate_page+0x0/0x107
    > [ 173.676016] [<c10e425d>] move_to_new_page+0x9a/0x1ae
    > [ 173.676016] [<c10e47e6>] migrate_pages+0x1e7/0x2fa
    >
    > This patch introduces radix_tree_deref_slot_protected() which calls
    > rcu_dereference_protected(). Users of it must pass in the mapping->tree_lock
    > that is protecting this dereference. Based on the locking hierarchy described
    > in mm/filemap.c, holding the tree lock is protecting the radix tree from
    > concurrent updaters in all cases (Confirm that no case has been missed).
    > According to Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt, if there is a guarantee that
    > no parallel updaters exist, use of rcu_dereference_protected() is allowed
    > (Confirm this is accurate?).
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
    > ---
    > include/linux/radix-tree.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
    > mm/migrate.c | 4 ++--
    > 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
    >
    > diff --git a/include/linux/radix-tree.h b/include/linux/radix-tree.h
    > index ab2baa5..252d21c 100644
    > --- a/include/linux/radix-tree.h
    > +++ b/include/linux/radix-tree.h
    > @@ -146,6 +146,25 @@ static inline void *radix_tree_deref_slot(void **pslot)
    > }
    >
    > /**
    > + * radix_tree_deref_slot_protected - dereference a slot without RCU lock but with tree lock held
    > + * @pslot: pointer to slot, returned by radix_tree_lookup_slot
    > + * Returns: item that was stored in that slot with any direct pointer flag
    > + * removed.
    > + *
    > + * For use with radix_tree_lookup_slot(). Caller must hold tree read
    > + * locked across slot lookup and dereference. Not required if write lock is
    > + * held (ie. items cannot be concurrently inserted).
    > + *
    > + * radix_tree_deref_retry must be used to confirm validity of the pointer if
    > + * only the read lock is held.
    > + */
    > +static inline void *radix_tree_deref_slot_protected(void **pslot,
    > + spinlock_t *treelock)
    > +{
    > + return rcu_dereference_protected(*pslot, lockdep_is_held(treelock));
    > +}

    It seems to be good than mine. Just a nitpick.
    Can't we get the mutex lock as update-side lock in future?

    --
    Kind regards,
    Minchan Kim
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-12-17 16:25    [W:0.056 / U:59.932 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site