Re: uninitialized pmem struct pages

[David Hildenbrand]

On 04.01.21 16:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 04-01-21 15:51:35, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 04.01.21 15:26, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Mon 04-01-21 11:45:39, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [....]
>>>> One instance where this is still an issue is
>>>> mm/memory-failure.c:memory_failure() and
>>>> mm/memory-failure.c:soft_offline_page(). I thought for a while about
>>>> "fixing" these, but to me it felt like fixing pfn_to_online_page() is
>>>> actually the right approach.
>>>>
>>>> But worse, before ZONE_DEVICE hot-add
>>>> 1. The whole section memmap does already exist (early sections always
>>>> have a full memmap for the whole section)
>>>> 2. The whole section memmap is initialized (although eventually with
>>>> dummy node/zone 0/0 for memory holes until that part is fixed) and might
>>>> be accessed by pfn walkers.
>>>>
>>>> So when hotadding ZONE_DEVICE we are modifying already existing and
>>>> visible memmaps. Bad.
>>>
>>> Could you elaborate please?
>>
>> Simplistic example: Assume you have a VM with 64MB on x86-64.
>>
>> We need exactly one memory section (-> one memory block device). We
>> allocate the memmap for a full section - an "early section". So we have
>> a memmap for 128MB, while 64MB are actually in use, the other 64MB is
>> initialized (like a memory hole). pfn_to_online_page() would return a
>> valid struct page for the whole section memmap.
>>
>> The remaining 64MB can later be used for hot-adding ZONE_DEVICE memory,
>> essentially re-initializing that part of the already-existing memmap.
>>
>> See pfn_valid():
>>
>> /*
>>  * Traditionally early sections always returned pfn_valid() for
>>  * the entire section-sized span.
>>  */
>> return early_section(ms) || pfn_section_valid(ms, pfn);
>>
>>
>> Depending on the memory layout of the system, a pfn walker might just be
>> about to stumble over this range getting re-initialized.
> 
> Right. But as long as pfn walkers are not synchronized with the memory
> hotplug this is a general problem with any struct page. Whether it
> belongs to pmem or a regular memory, no?

Yes, however in this case even the memory hotplug lock does not help.
But yes, related issues.

> 
>>>> 2. Deferred init of ZONE_DEVICE ranges
>>>>
>>>> memmap_init_zone_device() runs after the ZONE_DEVICE zone was resized
>>>> and outside the memhp lock. I did not follow if the use of
>>>> get_dev_pagemap() actually makes sure that memmap_init_zone_device() in
>>>> pagemap_range() actually completed. I don't think it does.
>>>
>>> So a pfn walker can see an unitialized struct page for a while, right?
>>>
>>> The problem that I have encountered is that some zone device pages are
>>> not initialized at all. That sounds like a different from those 2 above.
>>> I am having hard time to track what kind of pages those are and why we
>>> cannot initialized their zone/node and make them reserved at least.
>>
>> And you are sure that these are in fact ZONE_DEVICE pages? Not memory
>> holes e.g., tackled by
> 
> Well, the physical address matches the pmem range so I believe this is
> the case.
> 
> [...]
>> However, I do remember a discussion regarding "reserved altmap space"
>> ZONE_DEVICE ranges, and whether to initialize them or leave them
>> uninitialized. See comment in
>>
>> commit 77e080e7680e1e615587352f70c87b9e98126d03
>> Author: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date:   Fri Oct 18 20:19:39 2019 -0700
>>
>>     mm/memunmap: don't access uninitialized memmap in memunmap_pages()
> 
> yes, the reserved altmap space sounds like it might be it.

[...]

> Would it be possible to iterate over the reserved space and initialize
> Node/zones at least?

Right, I was confused by the terminology. We actually initialize the
pages used for memory mapping in
move_pfn_range_to_zone()->memmap_init_zone(). But we seem to exclude the
"reserved space" - I think for good reason.

I think the issue is that this "reserved space" might actually get
overridden by something else later, as it won't be used as a memmap, but
just to store "anything".

Do the physical addresses you see fall into the same section as boot
memory? Or what's around these addresses?


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb