From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
pifang@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHi v2] mm: put_and_wait_on_page_locked() while page is migrated
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 12:56:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181127105602.GC16502@rapoport-lnx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181126205351.GM3065@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:53:51PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:27:07AM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Waiting on a page migration entry has used wait_on_page_locked() all
> > along since 2006: but you cannot safely wait_on_page_locked() without
> > holding a reference to the page, and that extra reference is enough to
> > make migrate_page_move_mapping() fail with -EAGAIN, when a racing task
> > faults on the entry before migrate_page_move_mapping() gets there.
> >
> > And that failure is retried nine times, amplifying the pain when
> > trying to migrate a popular page. With a single persistent faulter,
> > migration sometimes succeeds; with two or three concurrent faulters,
> > success becomes much less likely (and the more the page was mapped,
> > the worse the overhead of unmapping and remapping it on each try).
> >
> > This is especially a problem for memory offlining, where the outer
> > level retries forever (or until terminated from userspace), because
> > a heavy refault workload can trigger an endless loop of migration
> > failures. wait_on_page_locked() is the wrong tool for the job.
> >
> > David Herrmann (but was he the first?) noticed this issue in 2014:
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=140110465608116&w=2
> >
> > Tim Chen started a thread in August 2017 which appears relevant:
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=150275941014915&w=2
> > where Kan Liang went on to implicate __migration_entry_wait():
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=150300268411980&w=2
> > and the thread ended up with the v4.14 commits:
> > 2554db916586 ("sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk")
> > 11a19c7b099f ("sched/wait: Introduce wakeup boomark in wake_up_page_bit")
> >
> > Baoquan He reported "Memory hotplug softlock issue" 14 November 2018:
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=154217936431300&w=2
> >
> > We have all assumed that it is essential to hold a page reference while
> > waiting on a page lock: partly to guarantee that there is still a struct
> > page when MEMORY_HOTREMOVE is configured, but also to protect against
> > reuse of the struct page going to someone who then holds the page locked
> > indefinitely, when the waiter can reasonably expect timely unlocking.
> >
> > But in fact, so long as wait_on_page_bit_common() does the put_page(),
> > and is careful not to rely on struct page contents thereafter, there is
> > no need to hold a reference to the page while waiting on it. That does
> > mean that this case cannot go back through the loop: but that's fine for
> > the page migration case, and even if used more widely, is limited by the
> > "Stop walking if it's locked" optimization in wake_page_function().
> >
> > Add interface put_and_wait_on_page_locked() to do this, using "behavior"
> > enum in place of "lock" arg to wait_on_page_bit_common() to implement it.
> > No interruptible or killable variant needed yet, but they might follow:
> > I have a vague notion that reporting -EINTR should take precedence over
> > return from wait_on_page_bit_common() without knowing the page state,
> > so arrange it accordingly - but that may be nothing but pedantic.
> >
> > __migration_entry_wait() still has to take a brief reference to the
> > page, prior to calling put_and_wait_on_page_locked(): but now that it
> > is dropped before waiting, the chance of impeding page migration is
> > very much reduced. Should we perhaps disable preemption across this?
> >
> > shrink_page_list()'s __ClearPageLocked(): that was a surprise! This
> > survived a lot of testing before that showed up. PageWaiters may have
> > been set by wait_on_page_bit_common(), and the reference dropped, just
> > before shrink_page_list() succeeds in freezing its last page reference:
> > in such a case, unlock_page() must be used. Follow the suggestion from
> > Michal Hocko, just revert a978d6f52106 ("mm: unlockless reclaim") now:
> > that optimization predates PageWaiters, and won't buy much these days;
> > but we can reinstate it for the !PageWaiters case if anyone notices.
> >
> > It does raise the question: should vmscan.c's is_page_cache_freeable()
> > and __remove_mapping() now treat a PageWaiters page as if an extra
> > reference were held? Perhaps, but I don't think it matters much, since
> > shrink_page_list() already had to win its trylock_page(), so waiters are
> > not very common there: I noticed no difference when trying the bigger
> > change, and it's surely not needed while put_and_wait_on_page_locked()
> > is only used for page migration.
> >
> > Reported-and-tested-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/pagemap.h | 2 ++
> > mm/filemap.c | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > mm/huge_memory.c | 6 ++--
> > mm/migrate.c | 12 +++----
> > mm/vmscan.c | 10 ++----
> > 5 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> >
>
> /**
> * put_and_wait_on_page_locked - Drop a reference and wait for it to be unlocked
wait for page ?
> * @page: The page to wait for.
> *
> * The caller should hold a reference on @page. They expect the page to
> * become unlocked relatively soon, but do not wish to hold up migration
> * (for example) by holding the reference while waiting for the page to
> * come unlocked. After this function returns, the caller should not
> * dereference @page.
> */
How about:
They expect the page to become unlocked relatively soon, but they can wait
for the page to come unlocked without holding the reference, to allow
other users of the @page (for example migration) to continue.
> (improvements gratefully received)
>
> > +void put_and_wait_on_page_locked(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > + wait_queue_head_t *q;
> > +
> > + page = compound_head(page);
> > + q = page_waitqueue(page);
> > + wait_on_page_bit_common(q, page, PG_locked, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, DROP);
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * add_page_wait_queue - Add an arbitrary waiter to a page's wait queue
> > * @page: Page defining the wait queue of interest
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-27 10:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-25 3:21 [PATCH] mm: put_and_wait_on_page_locked() while page is migrated Hugh Dickins
2018-11-25 4:07 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2018-11-25 18:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-26 3:29 ` Hugh Dickins
2018-11-26 19:27 ` Tim Chen
2018-11-26 19:27 ` [PATCHi v2] " Hugh Dickins
2018-11-26 19:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-26 19:53 ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-26 20:53 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-11-27 10:56 ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2018-11-27 16:49 ` Christopher Lameter
2018-11-27 16:56 ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-27 16:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-27 8:21 ` Vlastimil Babka
2018-11-27 10:58 ` Mike Rapoport
2018-11-27 18:10 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-11-27 21:08 ` Hugh Dickins
2018-11-27 21:45 ` Mike Rapoport
2018-11-27 22:40 ` Joey Pabalinas
2019-01-10 9:26 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-01-11 2:08 ` Hugh Dickins
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=20181127105602.GC16502@rapoport-lnx \
--to=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=dh.herrmann@gmail.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kan.liang@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pifang@redhat.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--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).