From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68675C38A2D for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:38:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B41738E0002; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id AF1A08E0001; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:38:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9E1768E0002; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:38:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1128E0001 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB3D120136 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:38:40 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80063356800.03.65DD418 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) by imf24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2423D180042 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:38:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=sao0x7V/qDrXMa/qw6MWn+NgehXNA635uHbmEpFBHFE=; b=O2jZXSsjcwwtqvYLE4RxwV26VZ joOyghvoGb6ulrI9Ih4OpDJ9jhgmlP1NJtEqb6EWEIAMnTRLljyg+VrDm78xY9cw+tg7dmVg1hl1h NcbLiAkbyI8oPt79pVO801N+xKNRZundPsrq3KizUjTcAIUGzLgf3rV/q6BKdfnd6jJV1cxiMn3uy eEad+VA/FMsAPNZJV/zFv+Btufq1TPvi0Jb6B9nx3NyeGsoh23tddShR8XCLz6Gl0vqHXgdsKRKdm EPAD44iXzGqmBJkq+mukf1LflPvqWyLD42NpG3uQJy/tydlevqmCto/L/QL4klA/98oAbJBvEfUgU oKzGc99g==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1onhY4-00H4TC-Kt; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:38:28 +0000 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 15:38:28 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Zhaoyang Huang Cc: Dave Chinner , "zhaoyang.huang" , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ke.wang@unisoc.com, steve.kang@unisoc.com, baocong.liu@unisoc.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, lvqiang.huang@unisoc.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: move xa forward when run across zombie page Message-ID: References: <20221018223042.GJ2703033@dread.disaster.area> <20221019220424.GO2703033@dread.disaster.area> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1666795119; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=sao0x7V/qDrXMa/qw6MWn+NgehXNA635uHbmEpFBHFE=; b=y5kxUJIbdhAO8NPdDYP9OPc6Kt/AsLwVu7MSiAhLyeIKjow26vIE1gjBux1JqugkmmPPLg yUlV0S+863bCX3fmnylZT58cpJVtRo8FAJIcoZMVNjiYLotVY/t4cSXYc1u/yo7pzq6JaO 0RA/UD3Qw1hF7vlc5MAnXPgvBfDpSGc= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf24.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=infradead.org header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=O2jZXSsj; spf=none (imf24.hostedemail.com: domain of willy@infradead.org has no SPF policy when checking 90.155.50.34) smtp.mailfrom=willy@infradead.org; dmarc=none ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1666795119; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=XkJ1L3gcWmN42m5+oNtPkNU4MnkkfmPmu2kMxTaRqR/QJ+4UDADwlq8VmVYnceORdmaPsM B8ohsZSOYU7QPjPsc7Bnt3ZI4oXvf7TEgHISwC2VUd868c+PVPcxWbOVsi5kFdLJ6/qT3w gyq1YBcBP6f8wyxJCeMRGjPaHWspfUA= X-Rspamd-Server: rspam06 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 2423D180042 X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf24.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=infradead.org header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=O2jZXSsj; spf=none (imf24.hostedemail.com: domain of willy@infradead.org has no SPF policy when checking 90.155.50.34) smtp.mailfrom=willy@infradead.org; dmarc=none X-Stat-Signature: uk9ihzip86hgs6za7fer39ifg9j9tcq9 X-HE-Tag: 1666795117-247997 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 04:38:31PM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 5:52 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 09:04:24AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 04:23:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 09:30:42AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > This is reading and writing the same amount of file data at the > > > > > application level, but once the data has been written and kicked out > > > > > of the page cache it seems to require an awful lot more read IO to > > > > > get it back to the application. i.e. this looks like mmap() is > > > > > readahead thrashing severely, and eventually it livelocks with this > > > > > sort of report: > > > > > > > > > > [175901.982484] rcu: INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: > > > > > [175901.985095] rcu: Tasks blocked on level-1 rcu_node (CPUs 0-15): P25728 > > > > > [175901.987996] (detected by 0, t=97399871 jiffies, g=15891025, q=1972622 ncpus=32) > > > > > [175901.991698] task:test_write state:R running task stack:12784 pid:25728 ppid: 25696 flags:0x00004002 > > > > > [175901.995614] Call Trace: > > > > > [175901.996090] > > > > > [175901.996594] ? __schedule+0x301/0xa30 > > > > > [175901.997411] ? sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0xb/0x90 > > > > > [175901.998513] ? sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0xb/0x90 > > > > > [175901.999578] ? asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20 > > > > > [175902.000714] ? xas_start+0x53/0xc0 > > > > > [175902.001484] ? xas_load+0x24/0xa0 > > > > > [175902.002208] ? xas_load+0x5/0xa0 > > > > > [175902.002878] ? __filemap_get_folio+0x87/0x340 > > > > > [175902.003823] ? filemap_fault+0x139/0x8d0 > > > > > [175902.004693] ? __do_fault+0x31/0x1d0 > > > > > [175902.005372] ? __handle_mm_fault+0xda9/0x17d0 > > > > > [175902.006213] ? handle_mm_fault+0xd0/0x2a0 > > > > > [175902.006998] ? exc_page_fault+0x1d9/0x810 > > > > > [175902.007789] ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x22/0x30 > > > > > [175902.008613] > > > > > > > > > > Given that filemap_fault on XFS is probably trying to map large > > > > > folios, I do wonder if this is a result of some kind of race with > > > > > teardown of a large folio... > > > > > > > > It doesn't matter whether we're trying to map a large folio; it > > > > matters whether a large folio was previously created in the cache. > > > > Through the magic of readahead, it may well have been. I suspect > > > > it's not teardown of a large folio, but splitting. Removing a > > > > page from the page cache stores to the pointer in the XArray > > > > first (either NULL or a shadow entry), then decrements the refcount. > > > > > > > > We must be observing a frozen folio. There are a number of places > > > > in the MM which freeze a folio, but the obvious one is splitting. > > > > That looks like this: > > > > > > > > local_irq_disable(); > > > > if (mapping) { > > > > xas_lock(&xas); > > > > (...) > > > > if (folio_ref_freeze(folio, 1 + extra_pins)) { > > > > > > But the lookup is not doing anything to prevent the split on the > > > frozen page from making progress, right? It's not holding any folio > > > references, and it's not holding the mapping tree lock, either. So > > > how does the lookup in progress prevent the page split from making > > > progress? > > > > My thinking was that it keeps hammering the ->refcount field in > > struct folio. That might prevent a thread on a different socket > > from making forward progress. In contrast, spinlocks are designed > > to be fair under contention, so by spinning on an actual lock, we'd > > remove contention on the folio. > > > > But I think the tests you've done refute that theory. I'm all out of > > ideas at the moment. Either we have a frozen folio from somebody who > > doesn't hold the lock, or we have someone who's left a frozen folio in > > the page cache. I'm leaning towards that explanation at the moment, > > but I don't have a good suggestion for debugging. > > > > Perhaps a bad suggestion for debugging would be to call dump_page() > > with a __ratelimit() wrapper to not be overwhelmed with information? > > > > > I would have thought: > > > > > > if (!folio_try_get_rcu(folio)) { > > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > > cond_resched(); > > > rcu_read_lock(); > > > goto repeat; > > > } > > > > > > Would be the right way to yeild the CPU to avoid priority > > > inversion related livelocks here... > > > > I'm not sure we're allowed to schedule here. We might be under another > > spinlock? > Any further ideas on this issue? Could we just deal with it as simply > as surpass the zero refed page to break the livelock as a workaround? No. This bug needs to be found & fixed. How easily can you reproduce it?