All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Henrik Rydberg" <rydberg@euromail.se>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Oops in 3.7-rc8 isolate_free_pages_block()
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 20:28:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121206192845.GA599@polaris.bitmath.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzievpA_b5p-bXwW11a89eC-ucpzKUuSqb2PNQOLrqaPg@mail.gmail.com>

> Actually, looking at it some more, I think that two-liner patch had
> *ANOTHER* bug.
> 
> Because the other line seems buggy as well.
> 
> Instead of
> 
>         end_pfn = ALIGN(pfn + pageblock_nr_pages, pageblock_nr_pages);
> 
> I think it should be
> 
>         end_pfn = ALIGN(pfn+1, pageblock_nr_pages);
> 
> instead. ALIGN() already aligns upwards (but the "+1" is needed in
> case pfn is already at a pageblock_nr_pages boundary, at which point
> ALIGN() would have just returned that same boundary.

Ah, and now the two callers treat the pointers the same way.

> Hmm? Mel, please confirm. And Henrik, it might be good to test that
> doubly-fixed patch. Because reading the patch and trying to fix bugs
> in it that way is *not* the same as actually verifying it ;)

Confirmed, working. I also checked 3.6, but could not trigger the
original problem there. The code also looks different, so it makes
sense. To be explicit, this is what I tested on top of v3.7-rc8:

---
 mm/compaction.c | 10 +++++++++-
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
index 9eef558..ff1c483 100644
--- a/mm/compaction.c
+++ b/mm/compaction.c
@@ -713,7 +713,15 @@ static void isolate_freepages(struct zone *zone,
 
 		/* Found a block suitable for isolating free pages from */
 		isolated = 0;
-		end_pfn = min(pfn + pageblock_nr_pages, zone_end_pfn);
+
+		/*
+		 * As pfn may not start aligned, pfn+pageblock_nr_page
+		 * may cross a MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES boundary and miss
+		 * a pfn_valid check. Ensure isolate_freepages_block()
+		 * only scans within a pageblock.
+		 */
+		end_pfn = ALIGN(pfn + 1, pageblock_nr_pages);
+		end_pfn = min(end_pfn, zone_end_pfn);
 		isolated = isolate_freepages_block(cc, pfn, end_pfn,
 						   freelist, false);
 		nr_freepages += isolated;
-- 
1.8.0.1

Hopefully, that's a wrap. :-)

Henrik

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Henrik Rydberg" <rydberg@euromail.se>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Oops in 3.7-rc8 isolate_free_pages_block()
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 20:28:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121206192845.GA599@polaris.bitmath.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzievpA_b5p-bXwW11a89eC-ucpzKUuSqb2PNQOLrqaPg@mail.gmail.com>

> Actually, looking at it some more, I think that two-liner patch had
> *ANOTHER* bug.
> 
> Because the other line seems buggy as well.
> 
> Instead of
> 
>         end_pfn = ALIGN(pfn + pageblock_nr_pages, pageblock_nr_pages);
> 
> I think it should be
> 
>         end_pfn = ALIGN(pfn+1, pageblock_nr_pages);
> 
> instead. ALIGN() already aligns upwards (but the "+1" is needed in
> case pfn is already at a pageblock_nr_pages boundary, at which point
> ALIGN() would have just returned that same boundary.

Ah, and now the two callers treat the pointers the same way.

> Hmm? Mel, please confirm. And Henrik, it might be good to test that
> doubly-fixed patch. Because reading the patch and trying to fix bugs
> in it that way is *not* the same as actually verifying it ;)

Confirmed, working. I also checked 3.6, but could not trigger the
original problem there. The code also looks different, so it makes
sense. To be explicit, this is what I tested on top of v3.7-rc8:

---
 mm/compaction.c | 10 +++++++++-
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
index 9eef558..ff1c483 100644
--- a/mm/compaction.c
+++ b/mm/compaction.c
@@ -713,7 +713,15 @@ static void isolate_freepages(struct zone *zone,
 
 		/* Found a block suitable for isolating free pages from */
 		isolated = 0;
-		end_pfn = min(pfn + pageblock_nr_pages, zone_end_pfn);
+
+		/*
+		 * As pfn may not start aligned, pfn+pageblock_nr_page
+		 * may cross a MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES boundary and miss
+		 * a pfn_valid check. Ensure isolate_freepages_block()
+		 * only scans within a pageblock.
+		 */
+		end_pfn = ALIGN(pfn + 1, pageblock_nr_pages);
+		end_pfn = min(end_pfn, zone_end_pfn);
 		isolated = isolate_freepages_block(cc, pfn, end_pfn,
 						   freelist, false);
 		nr_freepages += isolated;
-- 
1.8.0.1

Hopefully, that's a wrap. :-)

Henrik

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-12-06 19:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-12-06  9:17 Oops in 3.7-rc8 isolate_free_pages_block() Henrik Rydberg
2012-12-06 14:48 ` Jan Kara
2012-12-06 14:48   ` Jan Kara
2012-12-06 15:22   ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-12-06 15:22     ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-12-06 16:10     ` Linus Torvalds
2012-12-06 16:10       ` Linus Torvalds
2012-12-06 16:35       ` Mel Gorman
2012-12-06 16:35         ` Mel Gorman
2012-12-06 16:19   ` Mel Gorman
2012-12-06 16:19     ` Mel Gorman
2012-12-06 16:50     ` Linus Torvalds
2012-12-06 16:50       ` Linus Torvalds
2012-12-06 17:55       ` Mel Gorman
2012-12-06 17:55         ` Mel Gorman
2012-12-06 18:19         ` Linus Torvalds
2012-12-06 18:19           ` Linus Torvalds
2012-12-06 18:21           ` Mel Gorman
2012-12-06 18:21             ` Mel Gorman
2012-12-06 18:32           ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-12-06 18:32             ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-12-06 18:41             ` Linus Torvalds
2012-12-06 18:41               ` Linus Torvalds
2012-12-06 19:01               ` Mel Gorman
2012-12-06 19:01                 ` Mel Gorman
2012-12-06 19:28               ` Henrik Rydberg [this message]
2012-12-06 19:28                 ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-12-06 19:38                 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-12-06 19:38                   ` Linus Torvalds
2012-12-06 21:39                   ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-12-06 21:39                     ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-12-07  8:32                   ` Mel Gorman
2012-12-07  8:32                     ` Mel Gorman
2012-12-06 16:58     ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-12-06 16:58       ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-12-06 17:22     ` Henrik Rydberg
2012-12-06 17:22       ` Henrik Rydberg

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20121206192845.GA599@polaris.bitmath.org \
    --to=rydberg@euromail.se \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.