Re: [RFC 1/2] mm: additional page lock debugging

["Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:33:47AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 12/30/2013 06:43 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 08:45:03PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >>We've recently stumbled on several issues with the page lock which
> >>triggered BUG_ON()s.
> >>
> >>While working on them, it was clear that due to the complexity of
> >>locking its pretty hard to figure out if something is supposed
> >>to be locked or not, and if we encountered a race it was quite a
> >>pain narrowing it down.
> >>
> >>This is an attempt at solving this situation. This patch adds simple
> >>asserts to catch cases where someone is trying to lock the page lock
> >>while it's already locked, and cases to catch someone unlocking the
> >>lock without it being held.
> >>
> >>My initial patch attempted to use lockdep to get further coverege,
> >>but that attempt uncovered the amount of issues triggered and made
> >>it impossible to debug the lockdep integration without clearing out
> >>a large portion of existing bugs.
> >>
> >>This patch adds a new option since it will horribly break any system
> >>booting with it due to the amount of issues that it uncovers. This is
> >>more of a "call for help" to other mm/ hackers to help clean it up.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
> >>---
> >>  include/linux/pagemap.h | 11 +++++++++++
> >>  lib/Kconfig.debug       |  9 +++++++++
> >>  mm/filemap.c            |  4 +++-
> >>  3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/include/linux/pagemap.h b/include/linux/pagemap.h
> >>index 1710d1b..da24939 100644
> >>--- a/include/linux/pagemap.h
> >>+++ b/include/linux/pagemap.h
> >>@@ -321,6 +321,14 @@ static inline pgoff_t linear_page_index(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >>  	return pgoff >> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT);
> >>  }
> >>
> >>+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_PAGE_LOCKS
> >>+#define VM_ASSERT_LOCKED(page) VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLocked(page), (page))
> >>+#define VM_ASSERT_UNLOCKED(page) VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageLocked(page), (page))
> >>+#else
> >>+#define VM_ASSERT_LOCKED(page) do { } while (0)
> >>+#define VM_ASSERT_UNLOCKED(page) do { } while (0)
> >>+#endif
> >>+
> >>  extern void __lock_page(struct page *page);
> >>  extern int __lock_page_killable(struct page *page);
> >>  extern int __lock_page_or_retry(struct page *page, struct mm_struct *mm,
> >>@@ -329,16 +337,19 @@ extern void unlock_page(struct page *page);
> >>
> >>  static inline void __set_page_locked(struct page *page)
> >>  {
> >>+	VM_ASSERT_UNLOCKED(page);
> >>  	__set_bit(PG_locked, &page->flags);
> >>  }
> >>
> >>  static inline void __clear_page_locked(struct page *page)
> >>  {
> >>+	VM_ASSERT_LOCKED(page);
> >>  	__clear_bit(PG_locked, &page->flags);
> >>  }
> >>
> >>  static inline int trylock_page(struct page *page)
> >>  {
> >>+	VM_ASSERT_UNLOCKED(page);
> >
> >This is not correct. It's perfectly fine if the page is locked here: it's
> >why trylock needed.
> >
> >IIUC, what we want to catch is the case when the page has already locked
> >by the task.
> 
> Frankly, we shouldn't have trylock_page() at all.

It has valid use cases: if you don't want to sleep on lock, just give up
right away. Like grab_cache_page_nowait().

> Look at page_referenced() for example. Instead of assuming that it has to be
> called with page lock held, it's trying to acquire the lock and to free it only
> if it's the one that allocated it.

I agree here. page_referenced() looks badly.

> Why isn't there a VM_BUG_ON() there to test whether the page is locked, and let
> the callers handle that?

At the moment trylock_page() is part of lock_page(), so you'll hit it all
the time: on any contention.

> >I don't think it's reasonable to re-implement this functionality. We
> >really need to hook up lockdep.
> 
> The issue with adding lockdep straight away is that we need to deal with
> long held page locks somehow nicely. Unlike regular locks, these may be
> held for a rather long while, triggering really long locking chains which
> lockdep doesn't really like.
> 
> Many places lock a long list of pages in bulk - we could allow that with
> nesting, but then you lose your ability to detect trivial deadlocks.

I see. But we need something better then plain VM_BUG() to be able to
analyze what happened.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

--
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>