Re: [PATCH v12 1/9] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation counter

[Mina Almasry]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:14 AM Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/18/20 10:35 AM, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 6:21 AM Qian Cai <cai@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 15:19 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:31:20 -0800 Mina Almasry <almasrymina@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >> [ 7933.806377][T14355] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> [ 7933.806541][T14355] kernel BUG at mm/hugetlb.c:490!
> >> VM_BUG_ON(t - f <= 1);
> >> [ 7933.806562][T14355] Oops: Exception in kernel mode, sig: 5 [#1]
> <snip>
> > Hi Qian,
> >
> > Yes this VM_BUG_ON was added by a patch in the series ("hugetlb:
> > disable region_add file_region coalescing") so it's definitely related
> > to the series. I'm taking a look at why this VM_BUG_ON fires. Can you
> > confirm you reproduce this by running hugemmap06 from the ltp on a
> > powerpc machine? Can I maybe have your config?
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> Hi Mina,
>
> Looking at the region_chg code again, we do a
>
>         resv->adds_in_progress += *out_regions_needed;
>
> and then potentially drop the lock to allocate the needed entries.  Could
> anopther thread (only adding reservation for a single page) then come in
> and notice that there are not enough entries in the cache and hit the
> VM_BUG_ON()?

Maybe. Also I'm thinking the code thinks actual_regions_needed >=
in_regions_needed, but that doesn't seem like a guarantee. I think
this call sequence with the same t->f range would violate that:

region_chg (regions_needed=1)
region_chg (regions_needed=1)
region_add (fills in the range)
region_add (in_regions_needed = 1, actual_regions_needed = 0, so
assumptions in the code break).

Luckily it seems the ltp readily reproduces this, so I'm working on
reproducing it. I should have a fix soon, at least if I can reproduce
it as well.