Re: [PATCH] mm: fix panic in __alloc_pages

Alexey Makhalov
2021-11-02T09:40:41Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4206 bytes --]

>
> It is hard to follow your reply as your email client is not quoting
> properly. Let me try to reconstruct
>
> On Tue 02-11-21 08:48:27, Alexey Makhalov wrote:
>> On 02.11.21 08:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> CPU2 has been hot-added
>>>>> BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: 0000000000001608
>>>>> #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode
>>>>> #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page
>>>>> PGD 0 P4D 0
>>>>> Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
>>>>> CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: systemd Tainted: G E 5.15.0-rc7+ #11
>>>>> Hardware name: VMware, Inc. VMware7,1/440BX Desktop Reference Platform, BIOS VMW
>>>>>
>>>>> RIP: 0010:__alloc_pages+0x127/0x290
>>>>
>>>> Could you resolve this into a specific line of the source code please?
>
> This got probably unnoticed. I would be really curious whether this is
> a broken zonelist or something else.

backtrace (including inline functions)
pcpu_alloc_pages()
alloc_pages_node()
__alloc_pages_node()
__alloc_pages()
prepare_alloc_pages()
node_zonelist()

Panic happens in node_zonelist(), dereferencing NULL pointer of NODE_DATA(nid) in
include/linux/gfp.h:514
512 static inline struct zonelist *node_zonelist(int nid, gfp_t flags)
513 {
514 return NODE_DATA(nid)->node_zonelists + gfp_zonelist(flags);
515 }

>
>>>>> Node can be in one of the following states:
>>>>> 1. not present (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
>>>>> 2. present, but offline (nid > NUMA_NO_NODE, node_online(nid) == 0,
>>>>> NODE_DATA(nid) == NULL)
>>>>> 3. present and online (nid > NUMA_NO_NODE, node_online(nid) > 0,
>>>>> NODE_DATA(nid) != NULL)
>>>>>
>>>>> alloc_page_{bulk_array}node() functions verify for nid validity only
>>>>> and do not check if nid is online. Enhanced verification check allows
>>>>> to handle page allocation when node is in 2nd state.
>>>>
>>>> I do not think this is a correct approach. We should make sure that the
>>>> proper fallback node is used instead. This means that the zone list is
>>>> initialized properly. IIRC this has been a problem in the past and it
>>>> has been fixed. The initialization code is quite subtle though so it is
>>>> possible that this got broken again.
>
>> This approach behaves in the same way as CPU was not yet added. (state #1).
>> So, we can think of state #2 as state #1 when CPU is not present.
>
>>> I'm a little confused:
>>>
>>> In add_memory_resource() we hotplug the new node if required and set it
>>> online. Memory might get onlined later, via online_pages().
>>
>> You are correct. In case of memory hot add, it is true. But in case of adding
>> CPU with memoryless node, try_node_online() will be called only during CPU
>> onlining, see cpu_up().
>>
>> Is there any reason why try_online_node() resides in cpu_up() and not in add_cpu()?
>> I think it would be correct to online node during the CPU hot add to align with
>> memory hot add.
>
> I am not familiar with cpu hotplug, but this doesn't seem to be anything
> new so how come this became problem only now?

This is not CPU only hotplug, but CPU + NUMA node, and this new node is with no memory.
We accidentally found it by not unlining the CPU immediately.
>
>>> So after add_memory_resource()->__try_online_node() succeeded, we have
>>> an online pgdat -- essentially 3.
>>>
>> This patch detects if we're past 3. but says that it reproduced by
>> disabling *memory* onlining.
>> This is the hot adding of both new CPU and new _memoryless_ node (with CPU only)
>> And onlining CPU makes its node online. Disabling CPU onlining puts new node
>> into state #2, which leads to repro.
>>
>>> Before we online memory for a hotplugged node, all zones are !populated.
>>> So once we online memory for a !populated zone in online_pages(), we
>>> trigger setup_zone_pageset().
>>>
>>>
>>> The confusing part is that this patch checks for 3. but says it can be
>>> reproduced by not onlining *memory*. There seems to be something missing.
>>
>> Do we maybe need a proper populated_zone() check before accessing zone data?
>
> No, we need them initialize properly.
>

Thanks,
—Alexey

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]