linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix long time stall from mm_populate
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 18:00:30 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200212180030.a89da9c4cf2b9d11efcc25db@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200212231210.GA233109@google.com>

On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:12:10 -0800 Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 02:24:35PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:53:22 -0800 Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > > That's definitely wrong.  It'll clear PageReclaim and then pretend it did
> > > > nothing wrong.
> > > > 
> > > > 	return !PageWriteback(page) ||
> > > > 		test_and_clear_bit(PG_reclaim, &page->flags);
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Much better, Thanks for the review, Matthew!
> > > If there is no objection, I will send two patches to Andrew.
> > > One is PageReadahead strict, the other is limit retry from mm_populate.
> > 
> > With much more detailed changelogs, please!
> > 
> > This all seems rather screwy.  if a page is under writeback then it is
> > uptodate and we should be able to fault it in immediately.
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> This description in cover-letter will work? If so, I will add each part
> below in each patch.
> 
> Subject: [PATCH 0/3] fixing mm_populate long stall
> 
> I got several reports major page fault takes several seconds sometime.
> When I review drop mmap_sem in page fault hanlder, I found several bugs.
> 
>    CPU 1							CPU 2
> mm_populate
>  for ()
>    ..
>    ret = populate_vma_page_range
>      __get_user_pages
>        faultin_page
>          handle_mm_fault
> 	   filemap_fault
> 	     do_async_mmap_readahead
> 	     						shrink_page_list
> 							  pageout
> 							    SetPageReclaim(=SetPageReadahead)
> 							      writepage
> 							        SetPageWriteback
> 	       if (PageReadahead(page))
> 	         maybe_unlock_mmap_for_io
> 		   up_read(mmap_sem)
> 		 page_cache_async_readahead()
> 		   if (PageWriteback(page))
> 		     return;
> 
>     here, since ret from populate_vma_page_range is zero,
>     the loop continue to run with same address with previous
>     iteration. It will repeat the loop until the page's
>     writeout is done(ie, PG_writeback or PG_reclaim clear).

The populate_vma_page_range() kerneldoc is wrong.  "return 0 on
success, negative error code on error".  Care to fix that please?

> We could fix the above specific case via adding PageWriteback. IOW,
> 
>    ret = populate_vma_page_range
>    	   ...
> 	   ...
> 	   filemap_fault
> 	     do_async_mmap_readahead
> 	       if (!PageWriteback(page) && PageReadahead(page))
> 	         maybe_unlock_mmap_for_io
> 		   up_read(mmap_sem)
> 		 page_cache_async_readahead()
> 		   if (PageWriteback(page))
> 		     return;

Well yes, but the testing of PageWriteback() is a hack added in
fe3cba17c49471 to permit the sharing of PG_reclaim and PG_readahead. 
If we didn't need that hack then we could avoid adding new hacks to
hack around the old hack :(.  Have you considered anything along those
lines?  Rework how we handle PG_reclaim/PG_readahead?

> That's a thing [3/3] is fixing here. Even though it could fix the
> problem effectively, it has still livelock problem theoretically
> because the page of faulty address could be reclaimed and then
> allocated/become readahead marker on other CPUs during faulty
> process is retrying in mm_populate's loop.

Really?  filemap_fault()'s

	if (!lock_page_maybe_drop_mmap(vmf, page, &fpin))
		goto out_retry;

	/* Did it get truncated? */
	if (unlikely(compound_head(page)->mapping != mapping)) {
		unlock_page(page);
		put_page(page);
		goto retry_find;
	}

should handle such cases?

> [2/3] is fixing the
> such livelock via limiting retry count.

I wouldn't call that "fixing" :(

> There is another hole for the livelock or hang of the process as well
> as ageWriteback - ra_pages.
> 
> mm_populate
>  for ()
>    ..
>    ret = populate_vma_page_range
>      __get_user_pages
>        faultin_page
>          handle_mm_fault
> 	   filemap_fault
> 	     do_async_mmap_readahead
> 	       if (PageReadahead(page))
> 	         maybe_unlock_mmap_for_io
> 		   up_read(mmap_sem)
> 		 page_cache_async_readahead()
> 		   if (!ra->ra_pages)
> 		     return;
> 
> It will repeat the loop until ra->ra_pages become non-zero.
> [1/3] is fixing the problem.
> 



  reply	other threads:[~2020-02-13  2:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-11  0:19 [PATCH] mm: fix long time stall from mm_populate Minchan Kim
2020-02-11  1:10 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-02-11  3:50   ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-11  3:54     ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-02-11  4:25       ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-11 12:23         ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-02-11 16:34           ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-11 17:28             ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-02-11 17:57               ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-12 10:18                 ` Jan Kara
2020-02-12 17:40                   ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-12 18:28                     ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-02-12 19:53                       ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-12 22:24                         ` Andrew Morton
2020-02-12 23:12                           ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-13  2:00                             ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2020-02-13 17:24                               ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-11 18:14               ` Yang Shi
2020-02-12 10:22 ` Jan Kara
2020-02-12 17:43   ` Minchan Kim

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200212180030.a89da9c4cf2b9d11efcc25db@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).