From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lj1-f182.google.com (mail-lj1-f182.google.com [209.85.208.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFC7316EB53; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:16:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.182 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719393365; cv=none; b=I6h0M2McX4eR/Hel19XYmu+pEvI+o3FHIFUdGuFMk+Q5WJ4xzA7VCS/wFcVaTFAgN7zKEsyO8uhoRO19UuHHUHKYOqFCNOUjfflGnkfb6do5T0CMi5R3lAbG4y8nhTLOh/UtfPVSEn+Fr46Kdo5DyUKoojU1ewInmZfmkhMdW7Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719393365; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MMtXv5Ri6gnu/ZvxtyFF8jeukfcqm67vgKUvtekW57o=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=P5+p7Dou+rfUZLvUkpE7uee727Rc/YSXA4Qp0BuhmhE5/TAKpUPac1hDipcNP1QUWmLZ86LmhDrTi+yvmKe8ar9NjsYrHguj6XbF7JZF05KJ/rpv9H1OavZd9YDKskad9AAIg9Nngv2MfKIBSODHkEIFGTVj7/9t9rzbr5We5Hk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=gNuS/5C+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.182 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="gNuS/5C+" Received: by mail-lj1-f182.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2ebec2f11b7so71490011fa.2; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 02:16:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1719393362; x=1719998162; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Eto0wDQ+VnHOvIV84i+qZbXGq9+6luYSO1FuNV/i1EM=; b=gNuS/5C+VDbFMQAJEgvNxr8YSCFShhYRtwXcqurKVK0ZAcbKwGfJ3BwlP0+TLcnQKC th1nteG5eFd69Vt/yR9JZ6w9c3EYlHo5sxPUzneXTzfcBvRFAaqvcAaffsdwPQLq4boF WmzAYXK5RXDu+uLzzrwRyT+Tl+P23i2al5iec7YQPZ3U11G3Sq4GHkiAw+1M7E9YUZnB T6dYiccDaD2uIVl41I+45EAgIZc367FOgkaQoNkHi4ql6Lz9/Aac/QObMxkmkd0YafIs jEEBV3Am5smBrMvIPRjCYKTXJMZ8sJ3WtOnlqB8N6Y4VuIBgUcZsJEOhg0hgEX6cwQyu Espw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1719393362; x=1719998162; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Eto0wDQ+VnHOvIV84i+qZbXGq9+6luYSO1FuNV/i1EM=; b=LI9sNUq11zIr+rnkSnKXPbjcSf5jduF1jWOMaIpzkJpEy3xNWChWYPGnlhecDx2NFC Wrm6VBgN4Z7FTVBDxaWYWSo/eY+b5yRoAAGvP0t0FvBqiav0W8cJryucuTJnRKgCpuz7 +a3hQ4FfRIjU9u5cxXZ3TEKEtwPkBX/U8R1IRI36ukLI/mjvNdz034484pq2rsBhGN+/ L48cTgRAg3RyHREJNuzLfWJFGvRGWIIR/UOgBmnvz0dzcDAblI40ImmbIJhjO+MGXLiw W22bh0jb+DckLGNfjdh/Ifr728sz1NDVQtpF25MLW7DCNigfCK6/MvXl2yCM9IAVjNzS 7Q1g== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXPBswy/V2zsa5ZgBIgsV2kNwbKLiWy/AT1PsUsQHIp09sIGc4GUjTbvPoNYnMET2lf7G0NE+sJUYsVNS+m+zLtL1rWZT4p/Pfq3jUgB1NQAQPcjZ4ECkrQUcUiF7YnUKAm96QMqaUwaQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzYEdsIjWuNVVlY+9/btOdAycTT4XvxCg4KrtOBrkk12tQC5qcl /3VAOfHDABw5uXKlcvZCSSZ2VBNacVeev9TC3APUA8PthomdedNO X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH3CGPS2TZW4EbFb0VD5oUjqGvL3TfaspIt5F5OYeRa/0TR/mOSL97U7IIWNPSpBzA7tuqQqw== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3218:0:b0:2ec:55f3:40d with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2ec5b346102mr56875141fa.30.1719393361493; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 02:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc636 (host-90-233-219-252.mobileonline.telia.com. [90.233.219.252]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 38308e7fff4ca-2ec53b7c876sm11450641fa.62.2024.06.26.02.16.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 26 Jun 2024 02:16:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:15:58 +0200 To: Hailong Liu Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , Baoquan He , Nick Bowler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux regressions mailing list , linux-mm@kvack.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: PROBLEM: kernel crashes when running xfsdump since ~6.4 Message-ID: References: <20240626051206.mx2r4iy3wpexykay@oppo.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240626051206.mx2r4iy3wpexykay@oppo.com> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 01:12:06PM +0800, Hailong Liu wrote: > On Tue, 25. Jun 22:05, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > > > /** > > > > > > > * cpumask_next - get the next cpu in a cpumask > > > > > > > * @n: the cpu prior to the place to search (i.e. return will be > @n) > > > > > > > * @srcp: the cpumask pointer > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > * Return: >= nr_cpu_ids if no further cpus set. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, I got what you mean. In the vbq case, it may not have chance to get > > > > > > a return number as nr_cpu_ids. Becuase the hashed index limits the > > > > > > range to [0, nr_cpu_ids-1], and cpu_possible(index) will guarantee it > > > > > > won't be the highest cpu number [nr_cpu_ids-1] since CPU[nr_cpu_ids-1] must > > > > > > be possible CPU. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do I miss some corner cases? > > > > > > > > > > > Right. We guarantee that a highest CPU is available by doing: % nr_cpu_ids. > > > > > So we do not need to use *next_wrap() variant. You do not miss anything :) > > > > > > > > > > Hailong Liu has proposed more simpler version: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > > > > > index 11fe5ea208aa..e1e63ffb9c57 100644 > > > > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > > > > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > > > > > @@ -1994,8 +1994,9 @@ static struct xarray * > > > > > addr_to_vb_xa(unsigned long addr) > > > > > { > > > > > int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % num_possible_cpus(); > > > > > + int cpu = cpumask_nth(index, cpu_possible_mask); > > > > > > > > > > - return &per_cpu(vmap_block_queue, index).vmap_blocks; > > > > > + return &per_cpu(vmap_block_queue, cpu).vmap_blocks; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which just takes a next CPU if an index is not set in the cpu_possible_mask. > > > > > > > > > > The only thing that can be updated in the patch is to replace num_possible_cpu() > > > > > by the nr_cpu_ids. > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? I think we need to fix it by a minor change so it is > > > > > easier to back-port on stable kernels. > > > > > > > > Yeah, sounds good since the regresson commit is merged in v6.3. > > > > Please feel free to post this and the hash array patch separately for > > > > formal reviewing. > > > > > > > Agreed! The patch about hash array i will post later. > > > > > > > By the way, when I am replying this mail, I check the cpumask_nth() > > > > again. I doubt it may take more checking then cpu_possible(), given most > > > > of systems don't have gaps in cpu_possible_mask. I could be dizzy at > > > > this moment. > > > > > > > > static inline unsigned int cpumask_nth(unsigned int cpu, const struct cpumask *srcp) > > > > { > > > > return find_nth_bit(cpumask_bits(srcp), small_cpumask_bits, cpumask_check(cpu)); > > > > } > > > > > > > Yep, i do not think it is a big problem based on your noted fact. > > > > > Checked. There is a difference: > > > > 1. Default > > > > > > ... > > + 15.95% 6.05% [kernel] [k] __vmap_pages_range_noflush > > + 15.91% 1.74% [kernel] [k] addr_to_vb_xa <--------------- > > + 15.13% 12.05% [kernel] [k] vunmap_p4d_range > > + 14.17% 13.38% [kernel] [k] __find_nth_bit <-------------- > > + 10.62% 0.00% [kernel] [k] ret_from_fork_asm > > + 10.62% 0.00% [kernel] [k] ret_from_fork > > + 10.62% 0.00% [kernel] [k] kthread > > ... > > > > > > 2. Check if cpu_possible() and then fallback to cpumask_nth() if not > > > > > > ... > > + 6.84% 0.29% [kernel] [k] alloc_vmap_area > > + 6.80% 6.70% [kernel] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath > > + 4.24% 0.09% [kernel] [k] free_vmap_block > > + 2.41% 2.38% [kernel] [k] addr_to_vb_xa <----------- > > + 1.94% 1.91% [kernel] [k] xas_start > > ... > > > > > > It is _worth_ to check if an index is in possible mask: > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > > index 45e1506d58c3..af20f78c2cbf 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > > @@ -2542,7 +2542,10 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct vmap_block_queue, vmap_block_queue); > > static struct xarray * > > addr_to_vb_xa(unsigned long addr) > > { > > - int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % num_possible_cpus(); > > + int index = (addr / VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE) % nr_cpu_ids; > IIUC, use nr_cpu_ids here maybe incorrect. > > take b101 as example, nr_cpu_ids is 3. if index is 2 cpumask_nth(2, cpu_possible_mask); > might return 64. > But then a CPU2 becomes possible? Cutting by % nr_cpu_ids generates values < nr_cpu_ids. So, last CPU is always possible and we never do cpumask_nth() on a last possible CPU. What i miss here? -- Uladzislau Rezki