lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] mm, hugetlb: Fix simple resv_huge_pages underflow on UFFDIO_COPY
On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 5:37 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 May 2021 17:46:49 -0700 Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com> wrote:
>
> > The userfaultfd hugetlb tests detect a resv_huge_pages underflow. This
> > happens when hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte() is called with !is_continue on
> > an index for which we already have a page in the cache. When this
> > happens, we allocate a second page, double consuming the reservation,
> > and then fail to insert the page into the cache and return -EEXIST.
> >
> > To fix this, we first if there exists a page in the cache which already
> > consumed the reservation, and return -EEXIST immediately if so.
> >
> > There is still a rare condition where we fail to copy the page contents
> > AND race with a call for hugetlb_no_page() for this index and again we
> > will underflow resv_huge_pages. That is fixed in a more complicated
> > patch not targeted for -stable.
> >
> > Test:
> > Hacked the code locally such that resv_huge_pages underflows produce
> > a warning, then:
> >
> > ./tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd hugetlb_shared 10
> > 2 /tmp/kokonut_test/huge/userfaultfd_test && echo test success
> > ./tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd hugetlb 10
> > 2 /tmp/kokonut_test/huge/userfaultfd_test && echo test success
> >
> > Both tests succeed and produce no warnings. After the
> > test runs number of free/resv hugepages is correct.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>
> > Cc: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
> > Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> > Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>
> Do we have a Fixes: for this, or is it an always-been-there issue?

This reproduces as far back as 4.15 kernel. Looks like always-been-there issue.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-01 04:49    [W:0.158 / U:1.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site