Re: [PATCH] mm/filemap: Adding missing mem_cgroup_uncharge() to __add_to_page_cache_locked()

Matthew Wilcox
2021-01-25T16:26:03Z

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 05:03:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 25-01-21 10:57:54, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 1/25/21 4:28 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Sun 24-01-21 23:24:41, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > > The commit 3fea5a499d57 ("mm: memcontrol: convert page
> > > > cache to a new mem_cgroup_charge() API") introduced a bug in
> > > > __add_to_page_cache_locked() causing the following splat:
> > > >
> > > > [ 1570.068330] page dumped because: VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_memcg(page))
> > > > [ 1570.068333] pages's memcg:ffff8889a4116000
> > > > [ 1570.068343] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > > [ 1570.068346] kernel BUG at mm/memcontrol.c:2924!
> > > > [ 1570.068355] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI
> > > > [ 1570.068359] CPU: 35 PID: 12345 Comm: cat Tainted: G S W I 5.11.0-rc4-debug+ #1
> > > > [ 1570.068363] Hardware name: HP HP Z8 G4 Workstation/81C7, BIOS P60 v01.25 12/06/2017
> > > > [ 1570.068365] RIP: 0010:commit_charge+0xf4/0x130
> > > > :
> > > > [ 1570.068375] RSP: 0018:ffff8881b38d70e8 EFLAGS: 00010286
> > > > [ 1570.068379] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffffea00260ddd00 RCX: 0000000000000027
> > > > [ 1570.068382] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000004 RDI: ffff88907ebe05a8
> > > > [ 1570.068384] RBP: ffffea00260ddd00 R08: ffffed120fd7c0b6 R09: ffffed120fd7c0b6
> > > > [ 1570.068386] R10: ffff88907ebe05ab R11: ffffed120fd7c0b5 R12: ffffea00260ddd38
> > > > [ 1570.068389] R13: ffff8889a4116000 R14: ffff8889a4116000 R15: 0000000000000001
> > > > [ 1570.068391] FS: 00007ff039638680(0000) GS:ffff88907ea00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > > [ 1570.068394] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > > > [ 1570.068396] CR2: 00007f36f354cc20 CR3: 00000008a0126006 CR4: 00000000007706e0
> > > > [ 1570.068398] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> > > > [ 1570.068400] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> > > > [ 1570.068402] PKRU: 55555554
> > > > [ 1570.068404] Call Trace:
> > > > [ 1570.068407] mem_cgroup_charge+0x175/0x770
> > > > [ 1570.068413] __add_to_page_cache_locked+0x712/0xad0
> > > > [ 1570.068439] add_to_page_cache_lru+0xc5/0x1f0
> > > > [ 1570.068461] cachefiles_read_or_alloc_pages+0x895/0x2e10 [cachefiles]
> > > > [ 1570.068524] __fscache_read_or_alloc_pages+0x6c0/0xa00 [fscache]
> > > > [ 1570.068540] __nfs_readpages_from_fscache+0x16d/0x630 [nfs]
> > > > [ 1570.068585] nfs_readpages+0x24e/0x540 [nfs]
> > > > [ 1570.068693] read_pages+0x5b1/0xc40
> > > > [ 1570.068711] page_cache_ra_unbounded+0x460/0x750
> > > > [ 1570.068729] generic_file_buffered_read_get_pages+0x290/0x1710
> > > > [ 1570.068756] generic_file_buffered_read+0x2a9/0xc30
> > > > [ 1570.068832] nfs_file_read+0x13f/0x230 [nfs]
> > > > [ 1570.068872] new_sync_read+0x3af/0x610
> > > > [ 1570.068901] vfs_read+0x339/0x4b0
> > > > [ 1570.068909] ksys_read+0xf1/0x1c0
> > > > [ 1570.068920] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
> > > > [ 1570.068926] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> > > > [ 1570.068930] RIP: 0033:0x7ff039135595
> > > >
> > > > Before that commit, there was a try_charge() and commit_charge()
> > > > in __add_to_page_cache_locked(). These 2 separated charge functions
> > > > were replaced by a single mem_cgroup_charge(). However, it forgot
> > > > to add a matching mem_cgroup_uncharge() when the xarray insertion
> > > > failed with the page released back to the pool. Fix this by adding a
> > > > mem_cgroup_uncharge() call when insertion error happens.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 3fea5a499d57 ("mm: memcontrol: convert page cache to a new mem_cgroup_charge() API")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> > > OK, this is indeed a subtle bug. The patch aimed at simplifying the
> > > charge lifetime so that users do not really have to think about when to
> > > uncharge as that happens when the page is freed. fscache somehow breaks
> > > that assumption because it doesn't free up pages but it keeps some of
> > > them in the cache.
> > >
> > > I have tried to wrap my head around the cached object life time in
> > > fscache but failed and got lost in the maze. Is this the only instance
> > > of the problem? Would it make more sense to explicitly handle charges in
> > > the fscache code or there are other potential users to fall into this
> > > trap?
> >
> > There may be other places that have similar problem. I focus on the
> > filemap.c case as I have a test case that can reliably produce the bug
> > splat. This patch does fix it for my test case.
>
> I believe this needs a more general fix than catching a random places
> which you can trigger. Would it make more sense to address this at the
> fscache level and always make sure that a page returned to the pool is
> always uncharged instead?

I believe you mean "page cache" -- there is a separate thing called
'fscache' which is used to cache network filesystems.

I don't understand the memcg code at all, so I have no useful feedback
on what you're saying other than this.