Re: Suspicious error for CMA stress test

Hanjun Guo
2016-03-03T12:49:57Z

On 2016/3/3 15:42, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 2016-03-03 10:25 GMT+09:00 Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>:
>> (cc -mm and Joonsoo Kim)
>>
>>
>> On 03/02/2016 05:52 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I came across a suspicious error for CMA stress test:
>>>
>>> Before the test, I got:
>>> -bash-4.3# cat /proc/meminfo | grep Cma
>>> CmaTotal: 204800 kB
>>> CmaFree: 195044 kB
>>>
>>>
>>> After running the test:
>>> -bash-4.3# cat /proc/meminfo | grep Cma
>>> CmaTotal: 204800 kB
>>> CmaFree: 6602584 kB
>>>
>>> So the freed CMA memory is more than total..
>>>
>>> Also the the MemFree is more than mem total:
>>>
>>> -bash-4.3# cat /proc/meminfo
>>> MemTotal: 16342016 kB
>>> MemFree: 22367268 kB
>>> MemAvailable: 22370528 kB
[...]
>>
>> I played with this a bit and can see the same problem. The sanity
>> check of CmaFree < CmaTotal generally triggers in
>> __move_zone_freepage_state in unset_migratetype_isolate.
>> This also seems to be present as far back as v4.0 which was the
>> first version to have the updated accounting from Joonsoo.
>> Were there known limitations with the new freepage accounting,
>> Joonsoo?
> I don't know. I also played with this and looks like there is
> accounting problem, however, for my case, number of free page is slightly less
> than total. I will take a look.
>
> Hanjun, could you tell me your malloc_size? I tested with 1 and it doesn't
> look like your case.

I tested with malloc_size with 2M, and it grows much bigger than 1M, also I
did some other test:

- run with single thread with 100000 times, everything is fine.

- I hack the cam_alloc() and free as below [1] to see if it's lock issue, with
the same test with 100 multi-thread, then I got:

-bash-4.3# cat /proc/meminfo | grep Cma
CmaTotal: 204800 kB
CmaFree: 225112 kB

It only increased about 30M for free, not 6G+ in previous test, although
the problem is not solved, the problem is less serious, is it a synchronization
problem?

Thanks
Hanjun

[1]:
index ea506eb..4447494 100644
--- a/mm/cma.c
+++ b/mm/cma.c
@@ -379,6 +379,7 @@ struct page *cma_alloc(struct cma *cma, size_t count, unsigned int align)
if (!count)
return NULL;

+ mutex_lock(&cma_mutex);
mask = cma_bitmap_aligned_mask(cma, align);
offset = cma_bitmap_aligned_offset(cma, align);
bitmap_maxno = cma_bitmap_maxno(cma);
@@ -402,17 +403,16 @@ struct page *cma_alloc(struct cma *cma, size_t count, unsigned int align)
mutex_unlock(&cma->lock);

pfn = cma->base_pfn + (bitmap_no << cma->order_per_bit);
- mutex_lock(&cma_mutex);
ret = alloc_contig_range(pfn, pfn + count, MIGRATE_CMA);
- mutex_unlock(&cma_mutex);
if (ret == 0) {
page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
break;
}

cma_clear_bitmap(cma, pfn, count);
- if (ret != -EBUSY)
+ if (ret != -EBUSY) {
break;
+ }

pr_debug("%s(): memory range at %p is busy, retrying\n",
__func__, pfn_to_page(pfn));
@@ -420,6 +420,7 @@ struct page *cma_alloc(struct cma *cma, size_t count, unsigned int align)
start = bitmap_no + mask + 1;
}

+ mutex_unlock(&cma_mutex);
trace_cma_alloc(pfn, page, count, align);

pr_debug("%s(): returned %p\n", __func__, page);
@@ -445,15 +446,19 @@ bool cma_release(struct cma *cma, const struct page *pages, unsigned int count)

pr_debug("%s(page %p)\n", __func__, (void *)pages);

+ mutex_lock(&cma_mutex);
pfn = page_to_pfn(pages);

- if (pfn < cma->base_pfn || pfn >= cma->base_pfn + cma->count)
+ if (pfn < cma->base_pfn || pfn >= cma->base_pfn + cma->count) {
+ mutex_unlock(&cma_mutex);
return false;
+ }

VM_BUG_ON(pfn + count > cma->base_pfn + cma->count);

free_contig_range(pfn, count);
cma_clear_bitmap(cma, pfn, count);
+ mutex_unlock(&cma_mutex);
trace_cma_release(pfn, pages, count);

return true;