7:18 a.m.
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 7:27 AM Rongwei Wang <rongwei.wang(a)linux.alibaba.com>
wrote:
On 2023/5/24 22:18, lijiang wrote:
Hi, Rongwei
Thank you for the patch.
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 8:00 PM <crash-utility-request(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 19:40:54 +0800
> From: Rongwei Wang <rongwei.wang(a)linux.alibaba.com>
> To: crash-utility(a)redhat.com, k-hagio-ab(a)nec.com
> Subject: [Crash-utility] [PATCH v3] arm64/x86_64: show zero pfn
> information when using vtop
> Message-ID: <20230516114054.63844-1-rongwei.wang(a)linux.alibaba.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; x-default=true
>
> Now vtop can not show us the page is zero pfn
> when PTE or PMD has attached ZERO PAGE. This
> patch supports show this information directly
> when using vtop, likes:
>
> crash> vtop -c 13674 ffff8917e000
> VIRTUAL PHYSICAL
> ffff8917e000 836e71000
>
> PAGE DIRECTORY: ffff000802f8d000
> PGD: ffff000802f8dff8 => 884e29003
> PUD: ffff000844e29ff0 => 884e93003
> PMD: ffff000844e93240 => 840413003
> PTE: ffff000800413bf0 => 160000836e71fc3
> PAGE: 836e71000 (ZERO PAGE)
> ...
>
> If huge page found:
>
> crash> vtop -c 14538 ffff95800000
> VIRTUAL PHYSICAL
> ffff95800000 910c00000
>
> PAGE DIRECTORY: ffff000801fa0000
> PGD: ffff000801fa0ff8 => 884f53003
> PUD: ffff000844f53ff0 => 8426cb003
> PMD: ffff0008026cb560 => 60000910c00fc1
> PAGE: 910c00000 (2MB, ZERO PAGE)
> ...
>
>
I did some tests on x86 64 and aarch64 machines, and got the following
results.
[1] on x86 64, it does not print the "ZERO PAGE" when using 1G huge pages.
(but for 2M huge page, it works)
crash> vtop -c 2763 7fdfc0000000
VIRTUAL PHYSICAL
7fdfc0000000 300000000
PGD: 23b9ae7f8 => 8000000235031067
PUD: 235031bf8 => 80000003000008e7
PAGE: 300000000 (1GB)
PTE PHYSICAL FLAGS
80000003000008e7 300000000 (PRESENT|RW|USER|ACCESSED|DIRTY|PSE|NX)
VMA START END FLAGS FILE
ffff9d65fc8a85c0 7fdfc0000000 7fe000000000 84400fb /mnt/hugetlbfs/test
PAGE PHYSICAL MAPPING INDEX CNT FLAGS
ffffef30cc000000 300000000 ffff9d65f5c35850 0 2 57ffffc001000c
uptodate,dirty,head
crash> help -v|grep zero
zero_paddr: 221a37000
huge_zero_paddr: 240000000
[2] on aarch64, it does not print the "ZERO PAGE"
crash> vtop -c 23390 ffff8d600000
VIRTUAL PHYSICAL
ffff8d600000 cc800000
PAGE DIRECTORY: ffff224ba02d9000
PGD: ffff224ba02d9ff8 => 80000017b38f003
PUD: ffff224b7b38fff0 => 80000017b38e003
PMD: ffff224b7b38e358 => e80000cc800f41
PAGE: cc800000 (2MB)
PTE PHYSICAL FLAGS
e80000cc800f41 cc800000 (VALID|USER|SHARED|AF|NG|PXN|UXN|DIRTY)
VMA START END FLAGS FILE
ffff224bb315f678 ffff8d600000 ffff8d800000 4400fb /mnt/hugetlbfs/test
PAGE PHYSICAL MAPPING INDEX CNT FLAGS
fffffc892b320000 cc800000 ffff224b5c48ac90 0 2 7ffff80001000c
uptodate,dirty,head
crash> help -v|grep zero
zero_paddr: 142662000
huge_zero_paddr: 111400000
I have one question: can this patch print "ZERO PAGE" on x86 64 when
using 1G huge pages? Or is it expected behavior on x86 64?
And It does not work on aarch64 machine to me. Did I miss anything else?
Hi, lijiang
I find you use '/mnt/hugetlbfs/test' to test this patch, but I have not do
this on hugetlbfs, just support THP (I
You are right, Rongwei. Because the z.c test case does not work on my
machines, I wrote two test cases by myself.
z.c: https://listman.redhat.com/archives/crash-utility/2023-May/010666.html
my test cases:
[1] use the mmap() to map the memory(without the *MAP_HUGETLB* flag):
ptr = mmap(NULL, map_len, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
[2] use the madvise() as below:
posix_memalign(&ptr, huge_page_size, n);
madvise(ptr, n, MADV_HUGEPAGE);
And then read data from ptr, the [1] and [2] both can work on my X86 64
machines for 2M hugepage.
But for the 1G hugepage, I did not see the similar code change in your
patch, do you mean that this patch doesn't support for the 1G hugepage?
I can confirm that the 1G hugepage is supported on my X86 64 machine:
# cat /proc/meminfo |grep -i huge
AnonHugePages: 407552 kB
ShmemHugePages: 0 kB
FileHugePages: 63488 kB
HugePages_Total: 10
HugePages_Free: 10
HugePages_Rsvd: 0
HugePages_Surp: 0
Hugepagesize: 1048576 kB
Hugetlb: 10485760 kB
indeed ignore the hugetlb when coding this function).
And I have read mm/hugetlb.c roughly, not find any zero page stuff when
page fault with read. It seems that hugetlb is not an angel user of this
function.
If the current patch does not support printing "ZERO PAGE" information
when
using hugetlbfs, it should be good to describe it in patch log(and explain
a bit *why* if possible).
If I miss something, please let me know.
BTW: could you please check the z.c test case again? Or can you share your
steps in
detail, that can help me speed up the tests on X86 64(4k/2M/1G)
and aarch64(4k or 64k/2M/512M/1G) machines.
# gcc -o z z.c
[root@hp-z640-01 crash]# ./z
zero: 7efe4cbff010 ---seems the address is problematic, not aligned
hello
Thanks.
Lianbo
Thanks for your time!
-wrw
Thanks
Lianbo