From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lj1-f181.google.com (mail-lj1-f181.google.com [209.85.208.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3D8C16EB52 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:16:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.181 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719393365; cv=none; b=pgAdKe/uiBryA7/Ux8zlQRIITMNH7qNDkFLbwXBPAH+HsGR3UDqNqwuvfrpaJiC67iEmgMmXIEPAn7Uhvqky5usjFao4OlkfvQ6wUmNZ2QGdsBGR+1aLIGBBY6mZCxV+H6XS06S+R6EyEJ/3s/vmPUy8KcA08na7FwXiARUL/PI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719393365; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MMtXv5Ri6gnu/ZvxtyFF8jeukfcqm67vgKUvtekW57o=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=P5+p7Dou+rfUZLvUkpE7uee727Rc/YSXA4Qp0BuhmhE5/TAKpUPac1hDipcNP1QUWmLZ86LmhDrTi+yvmKe8ar9NjsYrHguj6XbF7JZF05KJ/rpv9H1OavZd9YDKskad9AAIg9Nngv2MfKIBSODHkEIFGTVj7/9t9rzbr5We5Hk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=mG8CTAL7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.181 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="mG8CTAL7" Received: by mail-lj1-f181.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2ec1620a956so77599581fa.1 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 02:16:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1719393362; x=1719998162; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Eto0wDQ+VnHOvIV84i+qZbXGq9+6luYSO1FuNV/i1EM=; b=mG8CTAL7WnxMl8yWFsKjB3E9UGdNMIt3tKOg7wEQPsAnLpp122+ZKo/f8RttlhXoVN Y627HD8E+nyd3NahnL1SfjaJXv5W0/gd1sFGeDnKL/hVBp421L8pCAl1EiOdXjBFeIU2 QNBP46bGlxygQQHRvY9y7M1m86oEXAHVbJpsE7YqxQI/zpGt5Skvf0VfzZ0oJe4uHr5Q E9AcZGV1gB6e+Ur1nGVTF7kxgObgE5dbGRm1tiCXcGvu05zVtpkPwv+KswPJ8tkQH7fV rRanXDzjGK1R3g2xE0IVOIAekg+Mlmzx9ztpaJTFG//foMcuw7LiRq4cRatfdrloBu58 ZQbQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1719393362; x=1719998162; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Eto0wDQ+VnHOvIV84i+qZbXGq9+6luYSO1FuNV/i1EM=; b=ELU//fW/oQ0/7l17vjZ7ovaUCTJW46k4guOoJodbVWI9kmQoA6q0p2y4PkhNlTeHIp FMAvOzHSMFOc38ZramzXnn5kHBAHseOUpMs+arvftKc18JUyMNcw/7F5YyBnDpVmS+UB 6ZgT28G7uBhARB3718jjYFSvbZvwYVq+MqR1levcoEI1FEMjLSPZ6g9lDjpsX8rc/KiU R3CeJQTTH5nysXn+2091vdXXzrmykBQEfH4i4fEOClAX+HngV8HisoTvdcL3bZf3CXyL 5FZ7+bggwkBiN+JMz/esGKt4v605ZHl7OPv5EeqrpMmevkRJSdrPYmbjrzljIkzNvtRQ RHMQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX2VF0ZUI4CpQrD0kQOpGh9W8pYJozRE+zkWiclst7ifTf1gZM29fIa3bT4gyihdEtyuCSvYF22iv1canMe+yHTGUuOk24pbU/rfQ8= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyKyR6AEfMp7UiPpHF7l/gxQRpkPJ9JyyCPiEVREEDaV+PUZ9GT Efw2tDvIXXOUQsWdRS656ot3RA6FvqT2nR6+7bd2y9ng7SYPj6ho X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH3CGPS2TZW4EbFb0VD5oUjqGvL3TfaspIt5F5OYeRa/0TR/mOSL97U7IIWNPSpBzA7tuqQqw== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3218:0:b0:2ec:55f3:40d with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2ec5b346102mr56875141fa.30.1719393361493; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 02:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc636 (host-90-233-219-252.mobileonline.telia.com. [90.233.219.252]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 38308e7fff4ca-2ec53b7c876sm11450641fa.62.2024.06.26.02.16.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 26 Jun 2024 02:16:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:15:58 +0200 To: Hailong Liu Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , Baoquan He , Nick Bowler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux regressions mailing list , linux-mm@kvack.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: PROBLEM: kernel crashes when running xfsdump since ~6.4 Message-ID: References: <20240626051206.mx2r4iy3wpexykay@oppo.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: regressions@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240626051206.mx2r4iy3wpexykay@oppo.com> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 01:12:06PM +0800, Hailong Liu wrote: > On Tue, 25. Jun 22:05, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > > > /** > > > > > > > * cpumask_next - get the next cpu in a cpumask > > > > > > > * @n: the cpu prior to the place to search (i.e. return will be > @n) > > > > > > > * @srcp: the cpumask pointer > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > * Return: >= nr_cpu_ids if no further cpus set. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, I got what you mean. In the vbq case, it may not have chance to get > > > > > > a return number as nr_cpu_ids. Becuase the hashed index limits the > > > > > > range to [0, nr_cpu_ids-1], and cpu_possible(index) will guarantee it > > > > > > won't be the highest cpu number [nr_cpu_ids-1] since CPU[nr_cpu_ids-1] must > > > > > > be possible CPU. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do I miss some corner cases? > > > > > > > > > > > Right. We guarantee that a highest CPU is available by doing: % nr_cpu_ids. > > > > > So we do not need to use *next_wrap() variant. You do not miss anything :) > > > > > > > > > > Hailong Liu has proposed more simpler version: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > > > > > index 11fe5ea208aa..e1e63ffb9c57 100644 > > > > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > > > > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > > > > > @@ -1994,8 +1994,9 @@ static struct xarray * > > > > > addr_to_vb_xa(unsigned long addr) > > > > > { > > > > > int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % num_possible_cpus(); > > > > > + int cpu = cpumask_nth(index, cpu_possible_mask); > > > > > > > > > > - return &per_cpu(vmap_block_queue, index).vmap_blocks; > > > > > + return &per_cpu(vmap_block_queue, cpu).vmap_blocks; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which just takes a next CPU if an index is not set in the cpu_possible_mask. > > > > > > > > > > The only thing that can be updated in the patch is to replace num_possible_cpu() > > > > > by the nr_cpu_ids. > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? I think we need to fix it by a minor change so it is > > > > > easier to back-port on stable kernels. > > > > > > > > Yeah, sounds good since the regresson commit is merged in v6.3. > > > > Please feel free to post this and the hash array patch separately for > > > > formal reviewing. > > > > > > > Agreed! The patch about hash array i will post later. > > > > > > > By the way, when I am replying this mail, I check the cpumask_nth() > > > > again. I doubt it may take more checking then cpu_possible(), given most > > > > of systems don't have gaps in cpu_possible_mask. I could be dizzy at > > > > this moment. > > > > > > > > static inline unsigned int cpumask_nth(unsigned int cpu, const struct cpumask *srcp) > > > > { > > > > return find_nth_bit(cpumask_bits(srcp), small_cpumask_bits, cpumask_check(cpu)); > > > > } > > > > > > > Yep, i do not think it is a big problem based on your noted fact. > > > > > Checked. There is a difference: > > > > 1. Default > > > > > > ... > > + 15.95% 6.05% [kernel] [k] __vmap_pages_range_noflush > > + 15.91% 1.74% [kernel] [k] addr_to_vb_xa <--------------- > > + 15.13% 12.05% [kernel] [k] vunmap_p4d_range > > + 14.17% 13.38% [kernel] [k] __find_nth_bit <-------------- > > + 10.62% 0.00% [kernel] [k] ret_from_fork_asm > > + 10.62% 0.00% [kernel] [k] ret_from_fork > > + 10.62% 0.00% [kernel] [k] kthread > > ... > > > > > > 2. Check if cpu_possible() and then fallback to cpumask_nth() if not > > > > > > ... > > + 6.84% 0.29% [kernel] [k] alloc_vmap_area > > + 6.80% 6.70% [kernel] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath > > + 4.24% 0.09% [kernel] [k] free_vmap_block > > + 2.41% 2.38% [kernel] [k] addr_to_vb_xa <----------- > > + 1.94% 1.91% [kernel] [k] xas_start > > ... > > > > > > It is _worth_ to check if an index is in possible mask: > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > > index 45e1506d58c3..af20f78c2cbf 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > > @@ -2542,7 +2542,10 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct vmap_block_queue, vmap_block_queue); > > static struct xarray * > > addr_to_vb_xa(unsigned long addr) > > { > > - int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % num_possible_cpus(); > > + int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % nr_cpu_ids; > IIUC, use nr_cpu_ids here maybe incorrect. > > take b101 as example, nr_cpu_ids is 3. if index is 2 cpumask_nth(2, cpu_possible_mask); > might return 64. > But then a CPU2 becomes possible? Cutting by % nr_cpu_ids generates values < nr_cpu_ids. So, last CPU is always possible and we never do cpumask_nth() on a last possible CPU. What i miss here? -- Uladzislau Rezki