On 28/08/25 8:20 pm, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 26/08/2025 08:07, Dev Jain wrote:
We observed uffd-stress selftest failure on arm64 and intermittent failures on x86 too: running ./uffd-stress hugetlb-private 128 32
bounces: 17, mode: rnd read, ERROR: UFFDIO_COPY error: -12 (errno=12, @uffd-common.c:617) [FAIL] not ok 18 uffd-stress hugetlb-private 128 32 # exit=1
For this particular case, the number of free hugepages from run_vmtests.sh will be 128, and the test will allocate 64 hugepages in the source location. The stress() function will start spawning threads which will operate on the destination location, triggering uffd-operations like UFFDIO_COPY from src to dst, which means that we will require 64 more hugepages for the dst location.
Let us observe the locking_thread() function. It will lock the mutex kept at dst, triggering uffd-copy. Suppose that 127 (64 for src and 63 for dst) hugepages have been reserved. In case of BOUNCE_RANDOM, it may happen that two threads trying to lock the mutex at dst, try to do so at the same hugepage number. If one thread succeeds in reserving the last hugepage, then the other thread may fail in alloc_hugetlb_folio(), returning -ENOMEM. I can confirm that this is indeed the case by this hacky patch:
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c index 753f99b4c718..39eb21d8a91b 100644 --- a/mm/hugetlb.c +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c @@ -6929,6 +6929,11 @@ int hugetlb_mfill_atomic_pte(pte_t *dst_pte, folio = alloc_hugetlb_folio(dst_vma, dst_addr, false); if (IS_ERR(folio)) {
pte_t *actual_pte = hugetlb_walk(dst_vma, dst_addr, PMD_SIZE);if (actual_pte) {ret = -EEXIST;goto out;} ret = -ENOMEM; goto out;This code path gets triggered indicating that the PMD at which one thread is trying to map a hugepage, gets filled by a racing thread.
Therefore, instead of using freepgs to compute the amount of memory, use freepgs - 10, so that the test still has some extra hugepages to use. Note that, in case this value underflows, there is a check for the number of free hugepages in the test itself, which will fail, so we are safe.
Signed-off-by: Dev Jain dev.jain@arm.com
tools/testing/selftests/mm/run_vmtests.sh | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/run_vmtests.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/run_vmtests.sh index 471e539d82b8..6a9f435be7a1 100755 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/run_vmtests.sh +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/run_vmtests.sh @@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ CATEGORY="userfaultfd" run_test ${uffd_stress_bin} anon 20 16 # the size of the free pages we have, which is used for *each*. # uffd-stress expects a region expressed in MiB, so we adjust # half_ufd_size_MB accordingly. -half_ufd_size_MB=$(((freepgs * hpgsize_KB) / 1024 / 2)) +half_ufd_size_MB=$((((freepgs - 10) * hpgsize_KB) / 1024 / 2))
Why 10? I don't know much about uffd-stress but the comment at the top says it runs 3 threads per CPU, so does the number of potential races increase with the number of CPUs? Perhaps this number needs to be a function of nrcpu?
Yes the race will amplify with nrcpus, technically we need nr_cpus - 1 extra hugepages - the worst case is that all threads will try to perform uffd-copy on the same address, one of them will reserve the last hugepage and others will fail. 10 was just a random number; I see that run_vmtests.sh already has nr_cpus computed so I can easily reuse that. I'll send a v2.
I tested it and it works though so:
Tested-by: Ryan Roberts ryan.roberts@arm.com
Thanks.
CATEGORY="userfaultfd" run_test ${uffd_stress_bin} hugetlb "$half_ufd_size_MB" 32 CATEGORY="userfaultfd" run_test ${uffd_stress_bin} hugetlb-private "$half_ufd_size_MB" 32 CATEGORY="userfaultfd" run_test ${uffd_stress_bin} shmem 20 16