Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM)
From: Kirill A. Shutemov
Date: Thu Feb 25 2016 - 11:01:19 EST
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 03:49:33PM +0000, Steve Capper wrote:
> On 23 February 2016 at 18:47, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > [adding Steve, since he worked on THP for 32-bit ARM]
> Apologies for my late reply...
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 07:19:07PM +0100, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:32:21 +0300
> >> "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > The theory is that the splitting bit effetely masked bogus pmd_present():
> >> > we had pmd_trans_splitting() in all code path and that prevented mm from
> >> > touching the pmd. Once pmd_trans_splitting() has gone, mm proceed with the
> >> > pmd where it shouldn't and here's a boom.
> >> Well, I don't think pmd_present() == true is bogus for a trans_huge pmd under
> >> splitting, after all there is a page behind the the pmd. Also, if it was
> >> bogus, and it would need to be false, why should it be marked !pmd_present()
> >> only at the pmdp_invalidate() step before the pmd_populate()? It clearly
> >> is pmd_present() before that, on all architectures, and if there was any
> >> problem/race with that, setting it to !pmd_present() at this stage would
> >> only (marginally) reduce the race window.
> >> BTW, PowerPC and Sparc seem to do the same thing in pmdp_invalidate(),
> >> i.e. they do not set pmd_present() == false, only mark it so that it would
> >> not generate a new TLB entry, just like on s390. After all, the function
> >> is called pmdp_invalidate(), and I think the comment in mm/huge_memory.c
> >> before that call is just a little ambiguous in its wording. When it says
> >> "mark the pmd notpresent" it probably means "mark it so that it will not
> >> generate a new TLB entry", which is also what the comment is really about:
> >> prevent huge and small entries in the TLB for the same page at the same
> >> time.
> >> FWIW, and since the ARM arch-list is already on cc, I think there is
> >> an issue with pmdp_invalidate() on ARM, since it also seems to clear
> >> the trans_huge (and formerly trans_splitting) bit, which actually makes
> >> the pmd !pmd_present(), but it violates the other requirement from the
> >> comment:
> >> "the pmd_trans_huge and pmd_trans_splitting must remain set at all times
> >> on the pmd until the split is complete for this pmd"
> > I've only been testing this for arm64 (where I'm yet to see a problem),
> > but we use the generic pmdp_invalidate implementation from
> > mm/pgtable-generic.c there. On arm64, pmd_trans_huge will return true
> > after pmd_mknotpresent. On arm, it does look to be buggy, since it nukes
> > the entire entry... Steve?
> pmd_mknotpresent on arm looks inconsistent with the other
> architectures and can be changed.
> Having had a look at the usage, I can't see it causing an immediate
> problem (that needs to be addressed by an emergency patch).
> We don't have a notion of splitting pmds (so there is no splitting
> information to lose), and the only usage I could see of
> pmd_mknotpresent was:
> pmdp_invalidate(vma, haddr, pmd);
> pmd_populate(mm, pmd, pgtable);
> In mm/huge_memory.c, around line 3588.
> So we invalidate the entry (which puts down a faulting entry from
> pmd_mknotpresent and invalidates tlb), then immediately put down a
> table entry with pmd_populate.
> I have run a 32-bit ARM test kernel and exacerbated THP splits (that's
> what took me time), and I didn't notice any problems with 4.5-rc5.
If I read code correctly, your pmd_mknotpresent() makes the pmd
pmd_none(), right? If yes, it's a problem.
It introduces race I've described here:
Basically, if zap_pmd_range() would see pmd_none() between
pmdp_mknotpresent() and pmd_populate(), we're screwed.
The race window is small, but it's there.
Kirill A. Shutemov