Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] mm/gup: Handle hugetlb in the generic follow_page_mask code

David Hildenbrand
2024-04-02T18:43:50Z

On 02.04.24 19:57, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 06:39:31PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 02.04.24 18:20, Peter Xu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 05:26:28PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 02.04.24 16:48, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Hey, Ryan,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the report!
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27/03/2024 15:23, peterx@redhat.com wrote:
>>>>>> From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now follow_page() is ready to handle hugetlb pages in whatever form, and
>>>>>> over all architectures. Switch to the generic code path.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time to retire hugetlb_follow_page_mask(), following the previous
>>>>>> retirement of follow_hugetlb_page() in 4849807114b8.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There may be a slight difference of how the loops run when processing slow
>>>>>> GUP over a large hugetlb range on cont_pte/cont_pmd supported archs: each
>>>>>> loop of __get_user_pages() will resolve one pgtable entry with the patch
>>>>>> applied, rather than relying on the size of hugetlb hstate, the latter may
>>>>>> cover multiple entries in one loop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A quick performance test on an aarch64 VM on M1 chip shows 15% degrade over
>>>>>> a tight loop of slow gup after the path switched. That shouldn't be a
>>>>>> problem because slow-gup should not be a hot path for GUP in general: when
>>>>>> page is commonly present, fast-gup will already succeed, while when the
>>>>>> page is indeed missing and require a follow up page fault, the slow gup
>>>>>> degrade will probably buried in the fault paths anyway. It also explains
>>>>>> why slow gup for THP used to be very slow before 57edfcfd3419 ("mm/gup:
>>>>>> accelerate thp gup even for "pages != NULL"") lands, the latter not part of
>>>>>> a performance analysis but a side benefit. If the performance will be a
>>>>>> concern, we can consider handle CONT_PTE in follow_page().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before that is justified to be necessary, keep everything clean and simple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Afraid I'm seeing an oops when running gup_longterm test on arm64 with current mm-unstable. Git bisect blames this patch. The oops reproduces for me every time on 2 different machines:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ 9.340416] kernel BUG at mm/gup.c:778!
>>>>> [ 9.340746] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 00000000f2000800 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
>>>>> [ 9.341199] Modules linked in:
>>>>> [ 9.341481] CPU: 1 PID: 1159 Comm: gup_longterm Not tainted 6.9.0-rc2-00210-g910ff1a347e4 #11
>>>>> [ 9.342232] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
>>>>> [ 9.342647] pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
>>>>> [ 9.343195] pc : follow_page_mask+0x4d4/0x880
>>>>> [ 9.343580] lr : follow_page_mask+0x4d4/0x880
>>>>> [ 9.344018] sp : ffff8000898b3aa0
>>>>> [ 9.344345] x29: ffff8000898b3aa0 x28: fffffdffc53973e8 x27: 00003c0005d08000
>>>>> [ 9.345028] x26: ffff00014e5cfd08 x25: ffffd3513a40c000 x24: fffffdffc5d08000
>>>>> [ 9.345682] x23: ffffc1ffc0000000 x22: 0000000000080101 x21: ffff8000898b3ba8
>>>>> [ 9.346337] x20: 0000fffff4200000 x19: ffff00014e52d508 x18: 0000000000000010
>>>>> [ 9.347005] x17: 5f656e6f7a5f7369 x16: 2120262620296567 x15: 6170286461654865
>>>>> [ 9.347713] x14: 6761502128454741 x13: 2929656761702865 x12: 6761705f65636976
>>>>> [ 9.348371] x11: 65645f656e6f7a5f x10: ffffd3513b31d6e0 x9 : ffffd3513852f090
>>>>> [ 9.349062] x8 : 00000000ffffefff x7 : ffffd3513b31d6e0 x6 : 0000000000000000
>>>>> [ 9.349753] x5 : ffff00017ff98cc8 x4 : 0000000000000fff x3 : 0000000000000000
>>>>> [ 9.350397] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : ffff000190e8b480 x0 : 0000000000000052
>>>>> [ 9.351097] Call trace:
>>>>> [ 9.351312] follow_page_mask+0x4d4/0x880
>>>>> [ 9.351700] __get_user_pages+0xf4/0x3e8
>>>>> [ 9.352089] __gup_longterm_locked+0x204/0xa70
>>>>> [ 9.352516] pin_user_pages+0x88/0xc0
>>>>> [ 9.352873] gup_test_ioctl+0x860/0xc40
>>>>> [ 9.353249] __arm64_sys_ioctl+0xb0/0x100
>>>>> [ 9.353648] invoke_syscall+0x50/0x128
>>>>> [ 9.354022] el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x48/0xf8
>>>>> [ 9.354488] do_el0_svc+0x28/0x40
>>>>> [ 9.354822] el0_svc+0x34/0xe0
>>>>> [ 9.355128] el0t_64_sync_handler+0x13c/0x158
>>>>> [ 9.355489] el0t_64_sync+0x190/0x198
>>>>> [ 9.355793] Code: aa1803e0 d000d8e1 91220021 97fff560 (d4210000)
>>>>> [ 9.356280] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>>>>> [ 9.356651] note: gup_longterm[1159] exited with irqs disabled
>>>>> [ 9.357141] note: gup_longterm[1159] exited with preempt_count 2
>>>>> [ 9.358033] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>>>> [ 9.358800] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 0 at kernel/context_tracking.c:128 ct_kernel_exit.constprop.0+0x108/0x120
>>>>> [ 9.360157] Modules linked in:
>>>>> [ 9.360541] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Tainted: G D 6.9.0-rc2-00210-g910ff1a347e4 #11
>>>>> [ 9.361626] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
>>>>> [ 9.362087] pstate: 204003c5 (nzCv DAIF +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
>>>>> [ 9.362758] pc : ct_kernel_exit.constprop.0+0x108/0x120
>>>>> [ 9.363306] lr : ct_idle_enter+0x10/0x20
>>>>> [ 9.363845] sp : ffff8000801abdc0
>>>>> [ 9.364222] x29: ffff8000801abdc0 x28: 0000000000000000 x27: 0000000000000000
>>>>> [ 9.364961] x26: 0000000000000000 x25: ffff00014149d780 x24: 0000000000000000
>>>>> [ 9.365557] x23: 0000000000000000 x22: ffffd3513b299d48 x21: ffffd3513a785730
>>>>> [ 9.366239] x20: ffffd3513b299c28 x19: ffff00017ffa7da0 x18: 0000fffff5ffffff
>>>>> [ 9.366869] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 1fffe0002a21a8c1 x15: 0000000000000000
>>>>> [ 9.367524] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000002
>>>>> [ 9.368207] x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 0000000000000ad0 x9 : ffffd35138589230
>>>>> [ 9.369123] x8 : ffff00014149e2b0 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 000000000f8c0fb2
>>>>> [ 9.370403] x5 : 4000000000000002 x4 : ffff2cb045825000 x3 : ffff8000801abdc0
>>>>> [ 9.371170] x2 : ffffd3513a782da0 x1 : 4000000000000000 x0 : ffffd3513a782da0
>>>>> [ 9.372279] Call trace:
>>>>> [ 9.372519] ct_kernel_exit.constprop.0+0x108/0x120
>>>>> [ 9.373216] ct_idle_enter+0x10/0x20
>>>>> [ 9.373562] default_idle_call+0x3c/0x160
>>>>> [ 9.374055] do_idle+0x21c/0x280
>>>>> [ 9.374394] cpu_startup_entry+0x3c/0x50
>>>>> [ 9.374797] secondary_start_kernel+0x140/0x168
>>>>> [ 9.375220] __secondary_switched+0xb8/0xc0
>>>>> [ 9.375875] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The oops trigger is at mm/gup.c:778:
>>>>> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageHead(page) && !is_zone_device_page(page), page);
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the output of gup_longterm (last output is just before oops):
>>>>>
>>>>> # [INFO] detected hugetlb page size: 2048 KiB
>>>>> # [INFO] detected hugetlb page size: 32768 KiB
>>>>> # [INFO] detected hugetlb page size: 64 KiB
>>>>> # [INFO] detected hugetlb page size: 1048576 KiB
>>>>> TAP version 13
>>>>> 1..70
>>>>> # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd
>>>>> ok 1 Should have worked
>>>>> # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with tmpfile
>>>>> ok 2 Should have failed
>>>>> # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with local tmpfile
>>>>> ok 3 Should have failed
>>>>> # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (2048 kB)
>>>>> ok 4 Should have worked
>>>>> # [RUN] R/W longterm GUP pin in MAP_SHARED file mapping ... with memfd hugetlb (32768 kB)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So 2M passed ok, and its failing for 32M, which is cont-pmd. I'm guessing you're trying to iterate 2M into a cont-pmd folio and ending up with an unexpected tail page?
>>>>
>>>> I assume we find the expected tail page, it's just that the check
>>>>
>>>> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageHead(page) && !is_zone_device_page(page), page);
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't make sense with hugetlb folios. We might have a tail page mapped in
>>>> a cont-pmd entry. As soon as we call follow_huge_pmd() on "not the first
>>>> cont-pmd entry", we trigger this check.
>>>>
>>>> Likely this sanity check must also allow for hugetlb folios. Or we should
>>>> just remove it completely.
>>>
>>> Right, IMHO it'll be easier we remove it, actually I see there's one more
>>> at the end, so I think we need to remove both.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the past, we wanted to make sure that we never get tail pages of THP from
>>>> PMD entries, because something would currently be broken (we don't support
>>>> THP > PMD).
>>>
>>> There's probably one more thing we need to do, on allowing
>>> PageAnonExclusive() to work with hugetlb tails. Even if we remove the
>>> warnings and if I read the code right, we can BUG_ON again on checking tail
>>> pages over anon-exclusive for PageHuge.
>>>
>>> So I assume to fix it completely, we may need two changes: Patch 1 to
>>> prepare PageAnonExclusive() to work on hugetlb tails, then patch 2 to be
>>> squashed into the patch "mm/gup: handle huge pmd for follow_pmd_mask()".
>>> Note: not this patch to fixup, as this patch only does the "switchover" to
>>> the new path, the culprit should be the other patch..
>>>
>>> I have them attached below first, before I'll also go and see whether I can
>>> run some arm tests later today or tomorrow. David, any comments from
>>> anon-exclusive side?
>>
>> I added the PageAnonExclusive checks for hugetlb back then, because calling
>> it on a tail page indicated real trouble for hugetlb.
>>
>> Well, and I didn't want to have runtime-hugetlb checks in PageAnonExclusive
>> code called on certainly-not-hugetlb code paths.
>>
>> Personally, I'd fixup the problematic callsite where we know nothing nasty
>> is happening (like we did for gup_must_unshare(), because we don't expect
>> hugetlb tail pages from arbitrary other code).
>>
>> But as I'm getting closer to a folio_test_anon_exclusive() implementation as
>> we speak (closer, but not done :) ... ), where I'd remove any such hugetlb
>> special handling, I don't particularly care how we handle GUP here in the
>> meantime.
>
> That's what I was looking for and found missing just now, when I wanted to
> allow follow_huge_pmd() pass page / folio (which will be the head then)
> properly into different checks. I think that patch 1 is the simplest I can
> come up with that works mostly like what you said before a follow up
> cleanup on top if possible. It mostly pushed the existing runtime check in
> gup_must_unshare() to be more generic.
>
> IIUC it's also a matter of whether you'd want PageAnonExclusive() to take
> care of both thp + hugetlb in one shot, rather than let callers handle it
> by things like "if (PageHuge()) ... else ...", which I would try to avoid.

I tried to not let the caller pass in things that didn't make any sense.

Getting a tail page on a hugetlb folio in a page table walker except
GUP-fast was completely bogus before your patch.

PageAnonExclusive was designed to be set on the page that was pointed to
by a PTE, like having an additional PTE bit. Cont-pte/cont-pmd with the
hugetlb fuzz around it we all love (huge_pte_offset()) did the right
thing, because it abstracted the "multiple cont-pte/cont-pmd" PTEs to
just a single logical PTE, with a single dedicated PageAnonExclusive.

So "conceptually", the caller that knows how the "single logical PTE"
was the one to handle it. That meant, GUP-fast needed to be special,
because it was unaware of the huge_pte_offset() logic.

But that seems to change now as we are changing our page table walkers,
so I don't particularly care how we handle it.

> It seems so far cleaner to allow PageAnonExclusive() take whatever tail
> pages, thp or hugetlb. But maybe your ultimate patchset can be even better
> than that.

At least that part will be much cleaner.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb