From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78CA8C2B9F8 for ; Mon, 24 May 2021 13:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FEAA613EA for ; Mon, 24 May 2021 13:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232889AbhEXNaW (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2021 09:30:22 -0400 Received: from mail-dm6nam10on2076.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([40.107.93.76]:53001 "EHLO NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232885AbhEXNaR (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2021 09:30:17 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=hdn9+7sI00LXoWbhXA+Mmuipk3Qau+L5Aeox7pJhXmvPQbpIBnv3osXWaektjtEzF2edpUAmTHJgOtyUziJ7o8BF4Esp2zOVxHA4zvqRViwO2QC5CUPx5AXnT2iFXeH8HKKl839I8uwUvSrOP9aywiQua5eZmMwRK9yuoZihKfJ7NOcGXL+ese2fr1rJz09cLfiPpdbtjmj/A9XUKC62E/d1D6l2KPSYDfCMdPkPj/0myLadzivRbV//GMiSJr+dF+ZgKSrzQ6ritFCdtTw0uVQiFdnvZqLd7kOcTNv1OnxBsM6wAkfp8+Ag+vPih79nLD/seOWHfcHe0Iq5r/ytGQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=PyhBgOyxSRgpNjhz1Vip5Z6Z+9zR73AsNDn0JBEaM9A=; b=iwIb6VnHIY6z01mraq+RUgWhtgnJaAv3JGBKE+3DydvWSFUC8cjeCH172ey+m6Io052LaH5q6pOT1tX0fMmwbyZWYxLaWmjvToY8AnPsgwBdZq/IRhxqpNugzqBJ7WXgVPv4BjFI2Qt4Z8F0+2PJajrKgueHQrYXzQYt1mOG21lAw4B5VBHchIr9ks7LyGb/19MEcOwWe0GqfCOtxiFgkuWED7/R5m6yOCkSDcGfvYiwBCovUNWh8KlVxNdc5pgRucF3u44u7hEXCD1K9oS0yDCD4ICu5eAAwAeerwH/Eh5dBEA0+Xuh8tJgREATWUwAylEOGhCNLrn1WIjKhQzoAw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 216.228.112.34) smtp.rcpttodomain=redhat.com smtp.mailfrom=nvidia.com; dmarc=pass (p=none sp=none pct=100) action=none header.from=nvidia.com; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Nvidia.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=PyhBgOyxSRgpNjhz1Vip5Z6Z+9zR73AsNDn0JBEaM9A=; b=upCFVdVsddbgY4meXUTUtEcBROPkvIpOGg9pOvzjKszUTBR1/rc1LQE1jox72PBBHrvmwu8GWibeFBuVpLuD5r/XNkYb9NokC8f3hDPCedz/egUgyTbaL23PqmaApFjUi5xDuWYeiQeWlV0GVk5i9RfZFr2pUcEXk+DCkmO3bBgHsdhrOdTHfK8/v75eih4/JgUOfQsIqaFcfVsLU4JbMieBa+b5he9en1oF2UlDVluQQwObE2R9/4bEN/5l0sktZR6DYy70u15iwN17GS51TRID3L8ujRsDgDlAZN1GzLJnUFUp7wQQW6nO0wM4GQX8AjOT8cJmqUScDuolBzBMOg== Received: from MWHPR22CA0024.namprd22.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:ef::34) by BN6PR1201MB2528.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:404:ae::16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4150.27; Mon, 24 May 2021 13:28:46 +0000 Received: from CO1NAM11FT064.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:ef:cafe::54) by MWHPR22CA0024.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:300:ef::34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4150.23 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 24 May 2021 13:28:46 +0000 X-MS-Exchange-Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is 216.228.112.34) smtp.mailfrom=nvidia.com; redhat.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;redhat.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nvidia.com; Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates 216.228.112.34 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=216.228.112.34; helo=mail.nvidia.com; Received: from mail.nvidia.com (216.228.112.34) by CO1NAM11FT064.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.13.175.77) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.4129.25 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 24 May 2021 13:28:46 +0000 Received: from localhost (172.20.145.6) by HQMAIL107.nvidia.com (172.20.187.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 24 May 2021 13:28:45 +0000 From: Alistair Popple To: , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Alistair Popple , Christoph Hellwig Subject: [PATCH v9 03/10] mm/rmap: Split try_to_munlock from try_to_unmap Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 23:27:18 +1000 Message-ID: <20210524132725.12697-4-apopple@nvidia.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.20.1 In-Reply-To: <20210524132725.12697-1-apopple@nvidia.com> References: <20210524132725.12697-1-apopple@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain X-Originating-IP: [172.20.145.6] X-ClientProxiedBy: HQMAIL101.nvidia.com (172.20.187.10) To HQMAIL107.nvidia.com (172.20.187.13) X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 2b267fd5-17e5-4851-48f3-08d91eb7db9e X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: BN6PR1201MB2528: X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:10000; X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0; X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 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 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:216.228.112.34;CTRY:US;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:mail.nvidia.com;PTR:schybrid03.nvidia.com;CAT:NONE;SFS:(4636009)(376002)(396003)(136003)(346002)(39860400002)(46966006)(36840700001)(336012)(26005)(47076005)(7416002)(70206006)(2616005)(82310400003)(8936002)(426003)(36860700001)(86362001)(70586007)(83380400001)(6666004)(36756003)(54906003)(110136005)(478600001)(5660300002)(356005)(4326008)(16526019)(2906002)(1076003)(82740400003)(7636003)(316002)(30864003)(186003)(36906005)(8676002);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101; X-OriginatorOrg: Nvidia.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 May 2021 13:28:46.0748 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2b267fd5-17e5-4851-48f3-08d91eb7db9e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.112.34];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com] X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1NAM11FT064.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR1201MB2528 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org The behaviour of try_to_unmap_one() is difficult to follow because it performs different operations based on a fairly large set of flags used in different combinations. TTU_MUNLOCK is one such flag. However it is exclusively used by try_to_munlock() which specifies no other flags. Therefore rather than overload try_to_unmap_one() with unrelated behaviour split this out into it's own function and remove the flag. Signed-off-by: Alistair Popple Reviewed-by: Ralph Campbell Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig --- v9: * Improved comments v8: * Renamed try_to_munlock to page_mlock to better reflect what the function actually does. * Removed the TODO from the documentation that this patch addresses. v7: * Added Christoph's Reviewed-by v4: * Removed redundant check for VM_LOCKED --- Documentation/vm/unevictable-lru.rst | 33 ++++++--------- include/linux/rmap.h | 3 +- mm/mlock.c | 10 ++--- mm/rmap.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++-------- 4 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/vm/unevictable-lru.rst b/Documentation/vm/unevictable-lru.rst index 0e1490524f53..eae3af17f2d9 100644 --- a/Documentation/vm/unevictable-lru.rst +++ b/Documentation/vm/unevictable-lru.rst @@ -389,14 +389,14 @@ mlocked, munlock_vma_page() updates that zone statistics for the number of mlocked pages. Note, however, that at this point we haven't checked whether the page is mapped by other VM_LOCKED VMAs. -We can't call try_to_munlock(), the function that walks the reverse map to +We can't call page_mlock(), the function that walks the reverse map to check for other VM_LOCKED VMAs, without first isolating the page from the LRU. -try_to_munlock() is a variant of try_to_unmap() and thus requires that the page +page_mlock() is a variant of try_to_unmap() and thus requires that the page not be on an LRU list [more on these below]. However, the call to -isolate_lru_page() could fail, in which case we couldn't try_to_munlock(). So, +isolate_lru_page() could fail, in which case we can't call page_mlock(). So, we go ahead and clear PG_mlocked up front, as this might be the only chance we -have. If we can successfully isolate the page, we go ahead and -try_to_munlock(), which will restore the PG_mlocked flag and update the zone +have. If we can successfully isolate the page, we go ahead and call +page_mlock(), which will restore the PG_mlocked flag and update the zone page statistics if it finds another VMA holding the page mlocked. If we fail to isolate the page, we'll have left a potentially mlocked page on the LRU. This is fine, because we'll catch it later if and if vmscan tries to reclaim @@ -545,31 +545,24 @@ munlock or munmap system calls, mm teardown (munlock_vma_pages_all), reclaim, holepunching, and truncation of file pages and their anonymous COWed pages. -try_to_munlock() Reverse Map Scan +page_mlock() Reverse Map Scan --------------------------------- -.. warning:: - [!] TODO/FIXME: a better name might be page_mlocked() - analogous to the - page_referenced() reverse map walker. - When munlock_vma_page() [see section :ref:`munlock()/munlockall() System Call Handling ` above] tries to munlock a page, it needs to determine whether or not the page is mapped by any VM_LOCKED VMA without actually attempting to unmap all PTEs from the page. For this purpose, the unevictable/mlock infrastructure -introduced a variant of try_to_unmap() called try_to_munlock(). +introduced a variant of try_to_unmap() called page_mlock(). -try_to_munlock() calls the same functions as try_to_unmap() for anonymous and -mapped file and KSM pages with a flag argument specifying unlock versus unmap -processing. Again, these functions walk the respective reverse maps looking -for VM_LOCKED VMAs. When such a VMA is found, as in the try_to_unmap() case, -the functions mlock the page via mlock_vma_page() and return SWAP_MLOCK. This -undoes the pre-clearing of the page's PG_mlocked done by munlock_vma_page. +page_mlock() walks the respective reverse maps looking for VM_LOCKED VMAs. When +such a VMA is found the page is mlocked via mlock_vma_page(). This undoes the +pre-clearing of the page's PG_mlocked done by munlock_vma_page. -Note that try_to_munlock()'s reverse map walk must visit every VMA in a page's +Note that page_mlock()'s reverse map walk must visit every VMA in a page's reverse map to determine that a page is NOT mapped into any VM_LOCKED VMA. However, the scan can terminate when it encounters a VM_LOCKED VMA. -Although try_to_munlock() might be called a great many times when munlocking a +Although page_mlock() might be called a great many times when munlocking a large region or tearing down a large address space that has been mlocked via mlockall(), overall this is a fairly rare event. @@ -602,7 +595,7 @@ inactive lists to the appropriate node's unevictable list. shrink_inactive_list() should only see SHM_LOCK'd pages that became SHM_LOCK'd after shrink_active_list() had moved them to the inactive list, or pages mapped into VM_LOCKED VMAs that munlock_vma_page() couldn't isolate from the LRU to -recheck via try_to_munlock(). shrink_inactive_list() won't notice the latter, +recheck via page_mlock(). shrink_inactive_list() won't notice the latter, but will pass on to shrink_page_list(). shrink_page_list() again culls obviously unevictable pages that it could diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h index def5c62c93b3..38a746787c2f 100644 --- a/include/linux/rmap.h +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h @@ -87,7 +87,6 @@ struct anon_vma_chain { enum ttu_flags { TTU_MIGRATION = 0x1, /* migration mode */ - TTU_MUNLOCK = 0x2, /* munlock mode */ TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD = 0x4, /* split huge PMD if any */ TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK = 0x8, /* ignore mlock */ @@ -239,7 +238,7 @@ int page_mkclean(struct page *); * called in munlock()/munmap() path to check for other vmas holding * the page mlocked. */ -void try_to_munlock(struct page *); +void page_mlock(struct page *page); void remove_migration_ptes(struct page *old, struct page *new, bool locked); diff --git a/mm/mlock.c b/mm/mlock.c index df590fda5688..a518d4c48e65 100644 --- a/mm/mlock.c +++ b/mm/mlock.c @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ void mlock_vma_page(struct page *page) /* * Finish munlock after successful page isolation * - * Page must be locked. This is a wrapper for try_to_munlock() + * Page must be locked. This is a wrapper for page_mlock() * and putback_lru_page() with munlock accounting. */ static void __munlock_isolated_page(struct page *page) @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static void __munlock_isolated_page(struct page *page) * and we don't need to check all the other vmas. */ if (page_mapcount(page) > 1) - try_to_munlock(page); + page_mlock(page); /* Did try_to_unlock() succeed or punt? */ if (!PageMlocked(page)) @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ static void __munlock_isolation_failed(struct page *page) * munlock()ed or munmap()ed, we want to check whether other vmas hold the * page locked so that we can leave it on the unevictable lru list and not * bother vmscan with it. However, to walk the page's rmap list in - * try_to_munlock() we must isolate the page from the LRU. If some other + * page_mlock() we must isolate the page from the LRU. If some other * task has removed the page from the LRU, we won't be able to do that. * So we clear the PageMlocked as we might not get another chance. If we * can't isolate the page, we leave it for putback_lru_page() and vmscan @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ unsigned int munlock_vma_page(struct page *page) { int nr_pages; - /* For try_to_munlock() and to serialize with page migration */ + /* For page_mlock() and to serialize with page migration */ BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page)); VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageTail(page), page); @@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ static int __mlock_posix_error_return(long retval) * * The fast path is available only for evictable pages with single mapping. * Then we can bypass the per-cpu pvec and get better performance. - * when mapcount > 1 we need try_to_munlock() which can fail. + * when mapcount > 1 we need page_mlock() which can fail. * when !page_evictable(), we need the full redo logic of putback_lru_page to * avoid leaving evictable page in unevictable list. * diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c index bc08c4d4b58a..e88966903e1e 100644 --- a/mm/rmap.c +++ b/mm/rmap.c @@ -1405,10 +1405,6 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mmu_notifier_range range; enum ttu_flags flags = (enum ttu_flags)(long)arg; - /* munlock has nothing to gain from examining un-locked vmas */ - if ((flags & TTU_MUNLOCK) && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)) - return true; - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MIGRATION) && (flags & TTU_MIGRATION) && is_zone_device_page(page) && !is_device_private_page(page)) return true; @@ -1469,8 +1465,6 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma, page_vma_mapped_walk_done(&pvmw); break; } - if (flags & TTU_MUNLOCK) - continue; } /* Unexpected PMD-mapped THP? */ @@ -1784,20 +1778,53 @@ bool try_to_unmap(struct page *page, enum ttu_flags flags) return !page_mapcount(page) ? true : false; } +/* + * Walks the vma's mapping a page and mlocks the page if any locked vma's are + * found. Once one is found the page is locked and the scan can be terminated. + */ +static bool page_mlock_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma, + unsigned long address, void *unused) +{ + struct page_vma_mapped_walk pvmw = { + .page = page, + .vma = vma, + .address = address, + }; + + /* An un-locked vma doesn't have any pages to lock, continue the scan */ + if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)) + return true; + + while (page_vma_mapped_walk(&pvmw)) { + /* PTE-mapped THP are never mlocked */ + if (!PageTransCompound(page)) + mlock_vma_page(page); + page_vma_mapped_walk_done(&pvmw); + + /* + * no need to continue scanning other vma's if the page has + * been locked. + */ + return false; + } + + return true; +} + /** - * try_to_munlock - try to munlock a page - * @page: the page to be munlocked + * page_mlock - try to mlock a page + * @page: the page to be mlocked * - * Called from munlock code. Checks all of the VMAs mapping the page - * to make sure nobody else has this page mlocked. The page will be - * returned with PG_mlocked cleared if no other vmas have it mlocked. + * Called from munlock code. Checks all of the VMAs mapping the page and mlocks + * the page if any are found. The page will be returned with PG_mlocked cleared + * if it is not mapped by any locked vmas. + * + * mmap_lock should be held for read or write. */ - -void try_to_munlock(struct page *page) +void page_mlock(struct page *page) { struct rmap_walk_control rwc = { - .rmap_one = try_to_unmap_one, - .arg = (void *)TTU_MUNLOCK, + .rmap_one = page_mlock_one, .done = page_not_mapped, .anon_lock = page_lock_anon_vma_read, @@ -1849,7 +1876,7 @@ static struct anon_vma *rmap_walk_anon_lock(struct page *page, * Find all the mappings of a page using the mapping pointer and the vma chains * contained in the anon_vma struct it points to. * - * When called from try_to_munlock(), the mmap_lock of the mm containing the vma + * When called from page_mlock(), the mmap_lock of the mm containing the vma * where the page was found will be held for write. So, we won't recheck * vm_flags for that VMA. That should be OK, because that vma shouldn't be * LOCKED. @@ -1901,7 +1928,7 @@ static void rmap_walk_anon(struct page *page, struct rmap_walk_control *rwc, * Find all the mappings of a page using the mapping pointer and the vma chains * contained in the address_space struct it points to. * - * When called from try_to_munlock(), the mmap_lock of the mm containing the vma + * When called from page_mlock(), the mmap_lock of the mm containing the vma * where the page was found will be held for write. So, we won't recheck * vm_flags for that VMA. That should be OK, because that vma shouldn't be * LOCKED. -- 2.20.1