From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lj1-f171.google.com (mail-lj1-f171.google.com [209.85.208.171]) (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 E5A6A181D1B for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 10:51:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719399108; cv=none; b=cVbnASUEkCiY96wKf/HfmdMa9VMEmn9tv7/kz8czM+VbwyBiRV0hui2CQKdW9QYX+r1+AJF7aChpUa0ZFL9BVj3aPvEnQGZaRK9/bAEm3mKAMxzoNyQ7WvbbiEkMqBgJEYtavmrHq6pUTCPXMxYY4cgDBk/wajMUTGlqG+f47uA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719399108; c=relaxed/simple; bh=njPBaVPiJ+OrsgkSQ4O6avilA3ChsvjLomkkhBGXUqg=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=PUoDT6ftAOhHs85Km4CYU78CIQB14oi1TjJ44grboWTP+D4RjWeLghDRVHXutwiNnQMc10ijMMWTdTnysa21jjDXS3nL/WFcyoZnnY/9vZdOmuSeyw+Nhnm3bri7yHkmlo1ymGQiEkYHu64ztxi2g6/7mcnrbi6Z2P/uhDwJhHQ= 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=F/JM3Ulp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.171 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="F/JM3Ulp" Received: by mail-lj1-f171.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2ebe40673e8so72307161fa.3 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 03:51:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1719399105; x=1720003905; 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=sAF9vjjeL2YSSoAhozbISzvWAPohgaJ/Mqgbub7kNF0=; b=F/JM3UlpbQSZY8r/GkRRQrNJ40iLTzsl+1Z3UOm2F4tJRhgkQ3zCgwhe3nnhmPjUsn PrkRw4grIvXgNXg9kDqpRrAxsb8PgezsBspgrp04cOf2sUgu6yfZ94qf/lyTke6cG4Rk RSy9Y1TbVh8NbwiQ3QywOTYptZbBKYizMDvCsiO9HL2wPhZlxwH16kN06wQL/75gNane Ev9HMnONUhFDajgHk21RI9TF15RCYRS8pLVwofrXlQJdKicY8JnHA+ngrigz1Q9oVQ9J lhhGmWWsk+uXswltvR9rdP6+omQKIHd2uhURTH5i1JutyAS76/N95EBTq5TNEo4m9Nvr ZRbA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1719399105; x=1720003905; 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=sAF9vjjeL2YSSoAhozbISzvWAPohgaJ/Mqgbub7kNF0=; b=kWmdouyNZtIpeQHp11u8oHoaXxa5Q7pBOM4pH4ncDQlRxn6GBu9G+GBpNyLQxvZV/e ggkcYPadoe7mvOI3S4rUDKN1H3kqd+WVbY8o52/tIVXUAyBA6e9C2qnMafBWunSPAXTo 1nRVxdPmE9OYvixOHmwOqRIAz5ZXT+NAp1sRk9jFQOx2WlYxW8Zz95XKaE0l36iL9POQ Og5LA292rys7Omy01fFgiYV0QKd9dyaF9v0PbkDGD07UAhHxj/exE9VY+NIKe8gT0m6p mUurul1bRbpk7/r53xNOUx4H2vI0wjc4wH5oVyoqQgi+qE+yIP0Rj2Yy9/TGC55R1qO3 H5jg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWByBNwLAm68o1YfXe4VaI/+rtJGdDuPPTXzFiQK0eaGqmuP/ID+6GxDoPcvEBulcG8IRYwg8KlTNIpbQek/vsbet56wNhhmDUm18Q= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzExSUlbkeMB3vl+3odyFDvpvX32n5V7PROqp9CxvvW7qqJ45/d jykUsqsuDrdhF/lvZOsa562mPAsSdSbM+bMME9FfdKG4NE12+q0R X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFKZSVhxM5coOj5/CC3REPwevHkwWRCxIsgNzYe4QGbxv+o6yN+lc0AxHbPqS/w93Knm6WQlQ== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9104:0:b0:2ec:57c7:c72c with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2ec5b3d4979mr52834821fa.35.1719399104689; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 03:51:44 -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-2ec54860756sm11434241fa.131.2024.06.26.03.51.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 26 Jun 2024 03:51:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:51:42 +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> <20240626100342.2dudj6fjjx6srban@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: <20240626100342.2dudj6fjjx6srban@oppo.com> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 06:03:42PM +0800, Hailong Liu wrote: > On Wed, 26. Jun 11:15, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > 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? > > > Sorry, I forget to reply to all :), I write a demo to test as follows: > > static int cpumask_init(void) > { > struct cpumask mask; > unsigned int cpu_id; > cpumask_clear(&mask); > > cpumask_set_cpu(1, &mask); > cpumask_set_cpu(3, &mask); > cpumask_set_cpu(5, &mask); > > cpu_id = find_last_bit(cpumask_bits(&mask), NR_CPUS) + 1; > pr_info("cpu_id:%d\n", cpu_id); > > for (; i < nr_cpu_ids; i++) { > pr_info("%d: cpu_%d\n", i, cpumask_nth(i, &mask)); > } > > return 0; > } > > [ 1.337020][ T1] cpu_id:6 > [ 1.337338][ T1] 0: cpu_1 > [ 1.337558][ T1] 1: cpu_3 > [ 1.337751][ T1] 2: cpu_5 > [ 1.337960][ T1] 3: cpu_64 > [ 1.338183][ T1] 4: cpu_64 > [ 1.338387][ T1] 5: cpu_64 > [ 1.338594][ T1] 6: cpu_64 > > In summary, the nr_cpu_ids = last_bit + 1, and cpumask_nth() return the nth cpu_id. > OK, i misread the cpumask_nth(). We should go with *_next() variant instead. Thank you for pointing this. Below is updated version with extra comment: diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c index 45e1506d58c3..03b82fb8ecd3 100644 --- a/mm/vmalloc.c +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c @@ -2542,7 +2542,15 @@ 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; + + /* + * Please note, nr_cpu_ids points on a highest set + * possible bit, i.e. we never invoke cpumask_next() + * if an index points on it which is nr_cpu_ids - 1. + */ + if (!cpu_possible(index)) + index = cpumask_next(index, cpu_possible_mask); return &per_cpu(vmap_block_queue, index).vmap_blocks; } Thanks! -- Uladzislau Rezki