Re: BUG: Bad page state [was: Strange oopses in 2.6.30]

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:02:33PM -0400, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 10:16 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:39:53AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > (cc to Mel and some reviewer)
> > 
> > [added Rik so that he can get multiple copies, too. :)]
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > > Flags are:
> > > > > 0000000000400000 -- __PG_MLOCKED
> > > > > 800000000050000c -- my page flags
> > > > >         3650000c -- Maxim's page flags
> > > > > 0000000000693ce1 -- my PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE
> > > > 
> > > > I guess commit da456f14d (page allocator: do not disable interrupts in
> > > > free_page_mlock()) is a bit wrong.
> > > > 
> > > > current code is:
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > static void free_hot_cold_page(struct page *page, int cold)
> > > > {
> > > > (snip)
> > > >         int clearMlocked = PageMlocked(page);
> > > > (snip)
> > > >         if (free_pages_check(page))
> > > >                 return;
> > > > (snip)
> > > >         local_irq_save(flags);
> > > >         if (unlikely(clearMlocked))
> > > >                 free_page_mlock(page);
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 
> > > > Oh well, we remove PG_Mlocked *after* free_pages_check().
> > > > Then, it makes false-positive warning.
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, my review was also wrong. I think reverting this patch is better ;)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I think a revert is way overkill. The intention of the patch is sound -
> > > reducing the number of times interrupts are disabled. Having pages
> > > with the PG_locked bit is now somewhat of an expected situation. I'd
> > > prefer to go with either
> > > 
> > > 1. Unconditionally clearing the bit with TestClearPageLocked as the
> > >    patch already posted does
> > > 2. Removing PG_locked from the free_pages_check()
> > > 3. Unlocking the pages as we go when an mlocked VMA is being torn town
> > 
> > Mel,
> > 
> > #3 SHOULD be happening in all cases.  The free_page_mlocked() function
> > counts when this is not happening.  We tried to fix all cases that we
> > encountered before this feature was submitted, but left the vm_stat
> > there to report if more PG_mlocked leaks were introduced. 
> 
> That makes sense. I was surprised at the thought that the pages were
> apparently not getting freed properly and upon investigation I could not
> trivially reproduce the problem. Can someone with this problem post their
> .config please in case I'm missing something in there?
> 
> > We also,
> > inadvertently, left PG_mlocked in the flags to check at free.  We didn't
> > hit this before your patch because free_page_mlock() did a test&clear on
> > the PG_mlocked before checking the flags.  Since you moved the call, and
> > used PageMlocked() instead of TestClearPageMlocked(), any PG_locked page
> > will cause the bug.
> > 
> > So, we have another PG_mlocked flag leaking to free.  I don't think this
> > is terribly serious in itself, and probably not deserving of a BUG_ON.
> > It probably doesn't deserve a vm_stat, either, I guess.  However, it
> > could indicate a more serious logic error and should be examined. So it
> > would be nice to retain some indication that it's happening.
> > 
> > > The patch that addresses 1 seemed ok to me. What do you think?
> > > 
> > 
> > Your alternative #2 sounds less expensive that test&clear.
> > 
> 
> How about the following? The intention is to warn once when PG_mlocked
> is set but continue to count the number of times the event occured.
> 
> ==== CUT HERE ====
> mm: Warn once when a page is freed with PG_mlocked set
> 
> When a page is freed with the PG_mlocked set, it is considered an unexpected
> but recoverable situation. A counter records how often this event happens
> but due to commit da456f14d [page allocator: do not disable interrupts in
> free_page_mlock()], the page state is being treated as a bad page which is
> considered a severe bug.
> 
> This bug drops the severity of the report in the event a page is freed
> with PG_mlocked set. A warning is printed once and the subsequent events
> counted.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx>
> --- 
>  include/linux/page-flags.h |   10 +++++++++-
>  mm/page_alloc.c            |    9 +++++++++
>  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/page-flags.h b/include/linux/page-flags.h
> index d6792f8..81731cf 100644
> --- a/include/linux/page-flags.h
> +++ b/include/linux/page-flags.h
> @@ -389,7 +389,15 @@ static inline void __ClearPageTail(struct page *page)
>  	 1 << PG_private | 1 << PG_private_2 | \
>  	 1 << PG_buddy	 | 1 << PG_writeback | 1 << PG_reserved | \
>  	 1 << PG_slab	 | 1 << PG_swapcache | 1 << PG_active | \
> -	 1 << PG_unevictable | __PG_MLOCKED)
> +	 1 << PG_unevictable)
> +
> +/*
> + * Flags checked when a page is freed. Pages being freed should not have
> + * these set but the situation is easily resolved and should just be
> + * reported as a once-off warning.
> + */
> +#define PAGE_FLAGS_WARN_AT_FREE \
> +	(__PG_MLOCKED)
>  
>  /*
>   * Flags checked when a page is prepped for return by the page allocator.
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index a5f3c27..c8c029e 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -497,6 +497,15 @@ static void free_page_mlock(struct page *page) { }
>  
>  static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page)
>  {
> +	if (unlikely(page->flags & PAGE_FLAGS_WARN_AT_FREE)) {

this condition is always false. it's because caller clear PG_Mlocked flag
before calling free_pages_check().


> +		WARN_ONCE(1, KERN_WARNING
> +			"Sloppy page flags set process %s at pfn:%05lx\n"
> +			"page:%p flags:%p\n",
> +			current->comm, page_to_pfn(page),
> +			page, (void *)page->flags);

hmm, mystery (void*) casting is here.


> +		page->flags &= ~PAGE_FLAGS_WARN_AT_FREE;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (unlikely(page_mapcount(page) |
>  		(page->mapping != NULL)  |
>  		(atomic_read(&page->_count) != 0) |

Howerver, I like this patch concept. this warning is useful and meaningful IMHO.



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