[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: kernel 3.0: BUG: soft lockup: find_get_pages+0x51/0x110
On Saturday 22 October 2011 01:41:20 Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 05:56:32PM +0200, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 05:11:28PM +0800, Nai Xia wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 04:30:09PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > >> mremap's down_write of mmap_sem, together with i_mmap_mutex/lock,
> > > >> and pagetable locks, were good enough before page migration (with its
> > > >> requirement that every migration entry be found) came in; and enough
> > > >> while migration always held mmap_sem. But not enough nowadays, when
> > > >> there's memory hotremove and compaction: anon_vma lock is also needed,
> > > >> to make sure a migration entry is not dodging around behind our back.
> > > >
> > > > For things like migrate and split_huge_page, the anon_vma layer must
> > > > guarantee the page is reachable by rmap walk at all times regardless
> > > > if it's at the old or new address.
> > > >
> > > > This shall be guaranteed by the copy_vma called by move_vma well
> > > > before move_page_tables/move_ptes can run.
> > > >
> > > > copy_vma obviously takes the anon_vma lock to insert the new "dst" vma
> > > > into the anon_vma chains structures (vma_link does that). That before
> > > > any pte can be moved.
> > > >
> > > > Because we keep two vmas mapped on both src and dst range, with
> > > > different vma->vm_pgoff that is valid for the page (the page doesn't
> > > > change its page->index) the page should always find _all_ its pte at
> > > > any given time.
> > > >
> > > > There may be other variables at play like the order of insertion in
> > > > the anon_vma chain matches our direction of copy and removal of the
> > > > old pte. But I think the double locking of the PT lock should make the
> > > > order in the anon_vma chain absolutely irrelevant (the rmap_walk
> > > > obviously takes the PT lock too), and furthermore likely the
> > > > anon_vma_chain insertion is favorable (the dst vma is inserted last
> > > > and checked last). But it shouldn't matter.
> > >
> > > I happened to be reading these code last week.
> > >
> > > And I do think this order matters, the reason is just quite similar why we
> > > need i_mmap_lock in move_ptes():
> > > If rmap_walk goes dst--->src, then when it first look into dst, ok, the
> >
> > You might be right in that the ordering matters. We do link new VMAs at
> Yes I also think ordering matters as I mentioned in the previous email
> that Nai answered to.
> > the end of the list in anon_vma_chain_list so remove_migrate_ptes should
> > be walking from src->dst.
> Correct. Like I mentioned in that previous email that Nai answered,
> that wouldn't be ok only if vma_merge succeeds and I didn't change my mind
> about that...
> copy_vma is only called by mremap so supposedly that path can
> trigger. Looks like I was wrong about vma_merge being able to succeed
> in copy_vma, and if it does I still think it's a problem as we have no
> ordering guarantee.
> The only other place that depends on the anon_vma_chain order is fork,
> and there, no vma_merge can happen, so that is safe.
> > If remove_migrate_pte finds src first, it will remove the pte and the
> > correct version will get copied. If move_ptes runs between when
> > remove_migrate_ptes moves from src to dst, then the PTE at dst will
> > still be correct.
> The problem is rmap_walk will search dst before src. So it will do
> nothing on dst. Then mremap moves the pte from src to dst. When rmap
> walk then checks "src" it finds nothing again.
> > > pte is not there, and it happily skip it and release the PTL.
> > > Then just before it look into src, move_ptes() comes in, takes the locks
> > > and moves the pte from src to dst. And then when rmap_walk() look
> > > into src, it will find an empty pte again. The pte is still there,
> > > but rmap_walk() missed it !
> > >
> >
> > I believe the ordering is correct though and protects us in this case.
> Normally it is, the only problem is vma_merge succeeding I think.
> > > IMO, this can really happen in case of vma_merge() succeeding.
> > > Imagine that src vma is lately faulted and in anon_vma_prepare()
> > > it got a same anon_vma with an existing vma ( named evil_vma )through
> > > find_mergeable_anon_vma(). This can potentially make the vma_merge() in
> > > copy_vma() return with evil_vma on some new relocation request. But src_vma
> > > is really linked _after_ evil_vma/new_vma/dst_vma.
> > > In this way, the ordering protocol of anon_vma chain is broken.
> > > This should be a rare case because I think in most cases
> > > if two VMAs can reusable_anon_vma() they were already merged.
> > >
> > > How do you think ?
> > >
> I tried to understand the above scenario yesterday but with 12 hour
> of travel on me I just couldn't.

Oh,yes, the first hypothesis was actually a vague feeling that things
might go wrong in that direction. The details in it was somewhat
missleading. But following that direction, I found the 2nd clear
hypothesis that leads to this bug step by step.

> Yesterday however I thought of another simpler case:
> part of a vma is moved with mremap elsewhere. Then it is moved back to
> its original place. So then vma_merge will succeed, and the "src" of
> mremap is now queued last in anon_vma_chain, wrong ordering.

Oh, yes, partial mremaping will do the trick. I was too addicted to find
a case when two VMAs missed a normal merge chance but will merge later
on. The only thing I can find by now is that ENOMEM is vma_adjust().

Partial mremaping is a simpler case and definitely more likey to happen.

> Today I read an email from Nai who showed apparently the same scenario
> I was thinking, without evil vmas or stuff.
> I have an hard time to imagine a vma_merge succeeding on a vma that
> isn't going back to its original place. The vm_pgoff + vma->anon_vma
> checks should keep some linarity so going back to the original place
> sounds the only way vma_merge can succeed in copy_vma. But still it
> can happen in that case I think (so not sure how the above scenario
> with an evil_vma could ever happen if it has a different anon_vma and
> it's not a part of a vma that is going back to its original place like
> in the second scenario Nai also posted about).
> That me and Nai had same scenario hypothesis indipendentely (second
> Nai hypoteisis not the first quoted above), plus copy_vma doing
> vma_merge and being only called by mremap, sounds like it can really
> happen.
> > Despite the comments in anon_vma_compatible(), I would expect that VMAs
> > that can share an anon_vma from find_mergeable_anon_vma() will also get
> > merged. When the new VMA is created, it will be linked in the usual
> > manner and the oldest->newest ordering is what is required. That's not
> > that important though.
> >
> > What is important is if mremap is moving src to a dst that is adjacent
> > to another anon_vma. If src has never been faulted, it's not an issue
> > because there are also no migration PTEs. If src has been faulted, then
> > is_mergeable_anon_vma() should fail as anon_vma1 != anon_vma2 and they
> > are not compatible. The ordering is preserved and we are still ok.
> I was thinking along these lines, the only pitfall should be when
> something is moved and put back into its original place. When it is
> moved, a new vma is created and queued last. When it's put back to its
> original location, vma_merge will succeed, and "src" is now the
> previous "dst" so queued last and that breaks.
> > All that said, while I don't think there is a problem, I can't convince
> > myself 100% of it. Andrea, can you spot a flaw?
> I think Nai's correct, only second hypothesis though.
> We have two options:
> 1) we remove the vma_merge call from copy_vma and we do the vma_merge
> manually after mremap succeed (so then we're as safe as fork is and we
> relay on the ordering). No locks but we'll just do 1 more allocation
> for one addition temporary vma that will be removed after mremap
> completed.
> 2) Hugh's original fix.
> First option probably is faster and prefereable, the vma_merge there
> should only trigger when putting things back to origin I suspect, and
> never with random mremaps, not sure how common it is to put things
> back to origin. If we're in a hurry we can merge Hugh's patch and
> optimize it later. We can still retain the migrate fix if we intend to
> take way number 1 later. I didn't like too much migrate doing
> speculative access on ptes that it can't miss or it'll crash anyway.

Me too, I think it's error-prone or at least we must be very careful
of its not doing sth evil. If the speculative access does not save
too much of the time, we need not brother to waste our mind power
over it.

> Said that the fix merged upstream is 99% certain to fix things in
> practice already so I doubt we're in hurry. And if things go wrong
> these issues don't go unnoticed and they shouldn't corrupt memory even
> if they trigger. 100% certain it can't do damage (other than a BUG_ON)
> for split_huge_page as I count the pmds encountered in the rmap_walk
> when I set the splitting bit, and I compare that count with
> page_mapcount and BUG_ON if they don't match, and later I repeat the
> same comparsion in the second rmap_walk that establishes the pte and
> downgrades the hugepmd to pmd, and BUG_ON again if they don't match
> with the previous rmap_walk count. It may be possible to trigger the
> BUG_ON with some malicious activity but it won't be too easy either
> because it's not an instant thing, still a race had to trigger and
> it's hard to reproduce.
> The anon_vma lock is quite a wide lock as it's shared by all parents
> anon_vma_chains too, slab allocation from local cpu may actually be
> faster in some condition (even when the slab allocation is
> superflous). But then I'm not sure. So I'm not against applying Hugh's
> fix even for the long run. I wouldn't git revert the migration change,
> but then if we go with Hugh's fix probably it'd be safe.

Yeah, anon_vma root lock is a big lock. And JFYI, actually I am doing
some very nasty hacking on anon_vma and one of the side effects is
breaking the root lock into pieces. But this area is pretty
convolved by many racing conditions. I hope some day I will finally make
my patch work and have your precious review of it. :-)

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-22 07:11    [W:0.080 / U:2.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site