Re: [PATCH hotfix] mm: fix crashes from deferred split racing folio migration

Andrew Morton
2024-07-04T02:35:42Z

On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 00:40:55 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:

> Even on 6.10-rc6, I've been seeing elusive "Bad page state"s (often on
> flags when freeing, yet the flags shown are not bad: PG_locked had been
> set and cleared??), and VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_ref_count(page) == 0)s from
> deferred_split_scan()'s folio_put(), and a variety of other BUG and WARN
> symptoms implying double free by deferred split and large folio migration.
>
> 6.7 commit 9bcef5973e31 ("mm: memcg: fix split queue list crash when large
> folio migration") was right to fix the memcg-dependent locking broken in
> 85ce2c517ade ("memcontrol: only transfer the memcg data for migration"),
> but missed a subtlety of deferred_split_scan(): it moves folios to its own
> local list to work on them without split_queue_lock, during which time
> folio->_deferred_list is not empty, but even the "right" lock does nothing
> to secure the folio and the list it is on.
>
> Fortunately, deferred_split_scan() is careful to use folio_try_get(): so
> folio_migrate_mapping() can avoid the race by folio_undo_large_rmappable()
> while the old folio's reference count is temporarily frozen to 0 - adding
> such a freeze in the !mapping case too (originally, folio lock and
> unmapping and no swap cache left an anon folio unreachable, so no freezing
> was needed there: but the deferred split queue offers a way to reach it).

There's a conflict when applying Kefeng's "mm: refactor
folio_undo_large_rmappable()"
(https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240521130315.46072-1-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com)
on top of this hotfix.

--- mm/memcontrol.c~mm-refactor-folio_undo_large_rmappable
+++ mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -7832,8 +7832,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_migrate(struct folio *ol
* In addition, the old folio is about to be freed after migration, so
* removing from the split queue a bit earlier seems reasonable.
*/
- if (folio_test_large(old) && folio_test_large_rmappable(old))
- folio_undo_large_rmappable(old);
+ folio_undo_large_rmappable(old);
old->memcg_data = 0;
}

I'm resolving this by simply dropping the above hunk. So Kefeng's
patch is now as below. Please check.

--- a/mm/huge_memory.c~mm-refactor-folio_undo_large_rmappable
+++ a/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -3258,22 +3258,11 @@ out:
return ret;
}

-void folio_undo_large_rmappable(struct folio *folio)
+void __folio_undo_large_rmappable(struct folio *folio)
{
struct deferred_split *ds_queue;
unsigned long flags;

- if (folio_order(folio) <= 1)
- return;
-
- /*
- * At this point, there is no one trying to add the folio to
- * deferred_list. If folio is not in deferred_list, it's safe
- * to check without acquiring the split_queue_lock.
- */
- if (data_race(list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list)))
- return;
-
ds_queue = get_deferred_split_queue(folio);
spin_lock_irqsave(&ds_queue->split_queue_lock, flags);
if (!list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list)) {
--- a/mm/internal.h~mm-refactor-folio_undo_large_rmappable
+++ a/mm/internal.h
@@ -622,7 +622,22 @@ static inline void folio_set_order(struc
#endif
}

-void folio_undo_large_rmappable(struct folio *folio);
+void __folio_undo_large_rmappable(struct folio *folio);
+static inline void folio_undo_large_rmappable(struct folio *folio)
+{
+ if (folio_order(folio) <= 1 || !folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
+ return;
+
+ /*
+ * At this point, there is no one trying to add the folio to
+ * deferred_list. If folio is not in deferred_list, it's safe
+ * to check without acquiring the split_queue_lock.
+ */
+ if (data_race(list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list)))
+ return;
+
+ __folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
+}

static inline struct folio *page_rmappable_folio(struct page *page)
{
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c~mm-refactor-folio_undo_large_rmappable
+++ a/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -2661,8 +2661,7 @@ void free_unref_folios(struct folio_batc
unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
unsigned int order = folio_order(folio);

- if (order > 0 && folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
- folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
+ folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
if (!free_pages_prepare(&folio->page, order))
continue;
/*
--- a/mm/swap.c~mm-refactor-folio_undo_large_rmappable
+++ a/mm/swap.c
@@ -123,8 +123,7 @@ void __folio_put(struct folio *folio)
}

page_cache_release(folio);
- if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
- folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
+ folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
mem_cgroup_uncharge(folio);
free_unref_page(&folio->page, folio_order(folio));
}
@@ -1021,10 +1020,7 @@ void folios_put_refs(struct folio_batch
free_huge_folio(folio);
continue;
}
- if (folio_test_large(folio) &&
- folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
- folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
-
+ folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
__page_cache_release(folio, &lruvec, &flags);

if (j != i)
--- a/mm/vmscan.c~mm-refactor-folio_undo_large_rmappable
+++ a/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1439,9 +1439,7 @@ free_it:
*/
nr_reclaimed += nr_pages;

- if (folio_test_large(folio) &&
- folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
- folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
+ folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
if (folio_batch_add(&free_folios, folio) == 0) {
mem_cgroup_uncharge_folios(&free_folios);
try_to_unmap_flush();
@@ -1848,9 +1846,7 @@ static unsigned int move_folios_to_lru(s
if (unlikely(folio_put_testzero(folio))) {
__folio_clear_lru_flags(folio);

- if (folio_test_large(folio) &&
- folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
- folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
+ folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
if (folio_batch_add(&free_folios, folio) == 0) {
spin_unlock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
mem_cgroup_uncharge_folios(&free_folios);
_