Re:

Re:

[John Hubbard]

On 4/21/22 09:41, Yury Norov wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] mm/gup: fix comments to pin_user_pages_*()
> 

Hi Yuri,

Thanks for picking this up. I have been distracted and didn't trust
myself to focus on this properly, so it's good to have help!

IT/admin point: somehow the first line of the commit description didn't
make it into an actual email subject. The subject line was blank when it
arrived in my inbox, and the subject is in the body here instead. Not
sure how that happened.

Maybe check your git-sendemail setup?


> pin_user_pages API forces FOLL_PIN in gup_flags, which means that the
> API requires struct page **pages to be provided (not NULL). However,
> the comment to pin_user_pages() says:
> 
>      * @pages:      array that receives pointers to the pages pinned.
>      *              Should be at least nr_pages long. Or NULL, if caller
>      *              only intends to ensure the pages are faulted in.
> 
> This patch fixes comments along the pin_user_pages code, and also adds
> WARN_ON(!pages), so that API users will have better understanding
> on how to use it.

No need to quote the code in the commit log. Instead, just summarize.
For example:

pin_user_pages API forces FOLL_PIN in gup_flags, which means that the
API requires struct page **pages to be provided (not NULL). However, the
comment to pin_user_pages() clearly allows for passing in a NULL @pages
argument.

Remove the incorrect comments, and add WARN_ON_ONCE(!pages) calls to
enforce the API.

> 
> It has been independently spotted by Minchan Kim and confirmed with
> John Hubbard:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/YgWA0ghrrzHONehH@google.com/

Let's add a Cc: line for Michan as well:

Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>

> 
> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov (NVIDIA) <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> ---
>   mm/gup.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> index f598a037eb04..559626457585 100644
> --- a/mm/gup.c
> +++ b/mm/gup.c
> @@ -2871,6 +2871,10 @@ int pin_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages,
>   	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(gup_flags & FOLL_GET))
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   
> +	/* FOLL_PIN requires pages != NULL */

Please delete each and every one of these one-line comments, because
they merely echo what the code says.

> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!pages))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
>   	gup_flags |= FOLL_PIN;
>   	return internal_get_user_pages_fast(start, nr_pages, gup_flags, pages);
>   }
> @@ -2893,6 +2897,10 @@ int pin_user_pages_fast_only(unsigned long start, int nr_pages,
>   	 */
>   	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(gup_flags & FOLL_GET))
>   		return 0;
> +
> +	/* FOLL_PIN requires pages != NULL */
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!pages))
> +		return 0;
>   	/*
>   	 * FOLL_FAST_ONLY is required in order to match the API description of
>   	 * this routine: no fall back to regular ("slow") GUP.
> @@ -2920,8 +2928,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pin_user_pages_fast_only);
>    * @nr_pages:	number of pages from start to pin
>    * @gup_flags:	flags modifying lookup behaviour
>    * @pages:	array that receives pointers to the pages pinned.
> - *		Should be at least nr_pages long. Or NULL, if caller
> - *		only intends to ensure the pages are faulted in.
> + *		Should be at least nr_pages long.
>    * @vmas:	array of pointers to vmas corresponding to each page.
>    *		Or NULL if the caller does not require them.
>    * @locked:	pointer to lock flag indicating whether lock is held and
> @@ -2944,6 +2951,10 @@ long pin_user_pages_remote(struct mm_struct *mm,
>   	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(gup_flags & FOLL_GET))
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   
> +	/* FOLL_PIN requires pages != NULL */
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!pages))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
>   	gup_flags |= FOLL_PIN;
>   	return __get_user_pages_remote(mm, start, nr_pages, gup_flags,
>   				       pages, vmas, locked);
> @@ -2957,8 +2968,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(pin_user_pages_remote);
>    * @nr_pages:	number of pages from start to pin
>    * @gup_flags:	flags modifying lookup behaviour
>    * @pages:	array that receives pointers to the pages pinned.
> - *		Should be at least nr_pages long. Or NULL, if caller
> - *		only intends to ensure the pages are faulted in.
> + *		Should be at least nr_pages long.
>    * @vmas:	array of pointers to vmas corresponding to each page.
>    *		Or NULL if the caller does not require them.
>    *
> @@ -2976,6 +2986,10 @@ long pin_user_pages(unsigned long start, unsigned long nr_pages,
>   	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(gup_flags & FOLL_GET))
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   
> +	/* FOLL_PIN requires pages != NULL */
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!pages))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
>   	gup_flags |= FOLL_PIN;
>   	return __gup_longterm_locked(current->mm, start, nr_pages,
>   				     pages, vmas, gup_flags);
> @@ -2994,6 +3008,10 @@ long pin_user_pages_unlocked(unsigned long start, unsigned long nr_pages,
>   	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(gup_flags & FOLL_GET))
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   
> +	/* FOLL_PIN requires pages != NULL */
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!pages))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
>   	gup_flags |= FOLL_PIN;
>   	return get_user_pages_unlocked(start, nr_pages, pages, gup_flags);
>   }

I hope we don't break any callers with the newly enforced !pages, but it's
the right thing to do, in order to avoid misunderstandings.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

Re:

[John Hubbard]

On 4/21/22 16:04, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 4/21/22 09:41, Yury Norov wrote:
>> Subject: [PATCH] mm/gup: fix comments to pin_user_pages_*()
>>
> 
> Hi Yuri,

...and I see that I have typo'd both Yury's and Minchan's name (further
down), in the same email!

Really apologize for screwing that up. It's Yury-with-a-"y", I know. :)


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

Re:

[Yury Norov]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 04:04:44PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 4/21/22 09:41, Yury Norov wrote:
> > Subject: [PATCH] mm/gup: fix comments to pin_user_pages_*()
> > 
> 
> Hi Yuri,
> 
> Thanks for picking this up. I have been distracted and didn't trust
> myself to focus on this properly, so it's good to have help!
> 
> IT/admin point: somehow the first line of the commit description didn't
> make it into an actual email subject. The subject line was blank when it
> arrived in my inbox, and the subject is in the body here instead. Not
> sure how that happened.
> 
> Maybe check your git-sendemail setup?
 
git-sendmail is OK. I just accidentally added empty line above Subject,
which broke format. My bad, sorry for this.
 
> > pin_user_pages API forces FOLL_PIN in gup_flags, which means that the
> > API requires struct page **pages to be provided (not NULL). However,
> > the comment to pin_user_pages() says:
> > 
> >      * @pages:      array that receives pointers to the pages pinned.
> >      *              Should be at least nr_pages long. Or NULL, if caller
> >      *              only intends to ensure the pages are faulted in.
> > 
> > This patch fixes comments along the pin_user_pages code, and also adds
> > WARN_ON(!pages), so that API users will have better understanding
> > on how to use it.
> 
> No need to quote the code in the commit log. Instead, just summarize.
> For example:
> 
> pin_user_pages API forces FOLL_PIN in gup_flags, which means that the
> API requires struct page **pages to be provided (not NULL). However, the
> comment to pin_user_pages() clearly allows for passing in a NULL @pages
> argument.
> 
> Remove the incorrect comments, and add WARN_ON_ONCE(!pages) calls to
> enforce the API.
> 
> > 
> > It has been independently spotted by Minchan Kim and confirmed with
> > John Hubbard:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/YgWA0ghrrzHONehH@google.com/
> 
> Let's add a Cc: line for Michan as well:
> 
> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
 
He's in CC already, I think...
 
> > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov (NVIDIA) <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >   mm/gup.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> > index f598a037eb04..559626457585 100644
> > --- a/mm/gup.c
> > +++ b/mm/gup.c
> > @@ -2871,6 +2871,10 @@ int pin_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages,
> >   	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(gup_flags & FOLL_GET))
> >   		return -EINVAL;
> > +	/* FOLL_PIN requires pages != NULL */
> 
> Please delete each and every one of these one-line comments, because
> they merely echo what the code says.

Sure.
 
> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!pages))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> >   	gup_flags |= FOLL_PIN;
> >   	return internal_get_user_pages_fast(start, nr_pages, gup_flags, pages);
> >   }
> > @@ -2893,6 +2897,10 @@ int pin_user_pages_fast_only(unsigned long start, int nr_pages,
> >   	 */
> >   	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(gup_flags & FOLL_GET))
> >   		return 0;
> > +
> > +	/* FOLL_PIN requires pages != NULL */
> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!pages))
> > +		return 0;
> >   	/*
> >   	 * FOLL_FAST_ONLY is required in order to match the API description of
> >   	 * this routine: no fall back to regular ("slow") GUP.
> > @@ -2920,8 +2928,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pin_user_pages_fast_only);
> >    * @nr_pages:	number of pages from start to pin
> >    * @gup_flags:	flags modifying lookup behaviour
> >    * @pages:	array that receives pointers to the pages pinned.
> > - *		Should be at least nr_pages long. Or NULL, if caller
> > - *		only intends to ensure the pages are faulted in.
> > + *		Should be at least nr_pages long.
> >    * @vmas:	array of pointers to vmas corresponding to each page.
> >    *		Or NULL if the caller does not require them.
> >    * @locked:	pointer to lock flag indicating whether lock is held and
> > @@ -2944,6 +2951,10 @@ long pin_user_pages_remote(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >   	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(gup_flags & FOLL_GET))
> >   		return -EINVAL;
> > +	/* FOLL_PIN requires pages != NULL */
> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!pages))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> >   	gup_flags |= FOLL_PIN;
> >   	return __get_user_pages_remote(mm, start, nr_pages, gup_flags,
> >   				       pages, vmas, locked);
> > @@ -2957,8 +2968,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(pin_user_pages_remote);
> >    * @nr_pages:	number of pages from start to pin
> >    * @gup_flags:	flags modifying lookup behaviour
> >    * @pages:	array that receives pointers to the pages pinned.
> > - *		Should be at least nr_pages long. Or NULL, if caller
> > - *		only intends to ensure the pages are faulted in.
> > + *		Should be at least nr_pages long.
> >    * @vmas:	array of pointers to vmas corresponding to each page.
> >    *		Or NULL if the caller does not require them.
> >    *
> > @@ -2976,6 +2986,10 @@ long pin_user_pages(unsigned long start, unsigned long nr_pages,
> >   	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(gup_flags & FOLL_GET))
> >   		return -EINVAL;
> > +	/* FOLL_PIN requires pages != NULL */
> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!pages))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> >   	gup_flags |= FOLL_PIN;
> >   	return __gup_longterm_locked(current->mm, start, nr_pages,
> >   				     pages, vmas, gup_flags);
> > @@ -2994,6 +3008,10 @@ long pin_user_pages_unlocked(unsigned long start, unsigned long nr_pages,
> >   	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(gup_flags & FOLL_GET))
> >   		return -EINVAL;
> > +	/* FOLL_PIN requires pages != NULL */
> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!pages))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> >   	gup_flags |= FOLL_PIN;
> >   	return get_user_pages_unlocked(start, nr_pages, pages, gup_flags);
> >   }
> 
> I hope we don't break any callers with the newly enforced !pages, but it's
> the right thing to do, in order to avoid misunderstandings.
> 
> thanks,
> -- 
> John Hubbard
> NVIDIA

Let me test v2 and resend shortly.

Thanks,
Yury

Re:

[John Hubbard]

On 4/21/22 16:17, Yury Norov wrote:
>> Let's add a Cc: line for Michan as well:
>>
>> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
>   
> He's in CC already, I think...
>   

Here, I am talking about attribution in the commit log, as opposed
to the email Cc. In other words, I'm suggesting that you literally
add this line to the commit description:

Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

Re:

[Yin, Fengwei]

On 3/7/2024 10:05 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 09:50:09PM +0800, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/7/2024 4:56 PM,  wrote:
>>> I just want to make sure I've understood correctly: CPU1's folio_put()
>>> is not the last reference, and it keeps iterating through the local
>>> list. Then CPU2 does the final folio_put() which causes list_del_init()
>>> to modify the local list concurrently with CPU1's iteration, so CPU1
>>> probably goes into the weeds?
>>
>> My understanding is this can not corrupt the folio->deferred_list as
>> this folio was iterated already.
> 
> I am not convinced about that at all.  It's possible this isn't the only
> problem, but deleting something from a list without holding (the correct)
> lock is something you have to think incredibly hard about to get right.
> I didn't bother going any deeper into the analysis once I spotted the
> locking problem, but the proof is very much on you that this is not a bug!
Removing folio from deferred_list in folio_put() also needs require
split_queue_lock. So my understanding is no deleting without hold
correct lock. local list iteration is impacted. But that's not the issue
Ryan hit here.

> 
>> But I did see other strange thing:
>> [   76.269942] page: refcount:0 mapcount:1 mapping:0000000000000000
>> index:0xffffbd0a0 pfn:0x2554a0
>> [   76.270483] note: kcompactd0[62] exited with preempt_count 1
>> [   76.271344] head: order:0 entire_mapcount:1 nr_pages_mapped:0 pincount:0
>>
>> This large folio has order 0? Maybe folio->_flags_1 was screwed?
>>
>> In free_unref_folios(), there is code like following:
>>                  if (order > 0 && folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
>>                          folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
>>
>> But with destroy_large_folio():
>>          if (folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
>>
>> 			folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
>>
>> Can it connect to the folio has zero refcount still in deferred list
>> with Matthew's patch?
>>
>>
>> Looks like folio order was cleared unexpected somewhere.
> 
> No, we intentionally clear it:
> 
> free_unref_folios -> free_unref_page_prepare -> free_pages_prepare ->
> page[1].flags &= ~PAGE_FLAGS_SECOND;
> 
> PAGE_FLAGS_SECOND includes the order, which is why we have to save it
> away in folio->private so that we know what it is in the second loop.
> So it's always been cleared by the time we call free_page_is_bad().
Oh. That's the key. Thanks a lot for detail explanation.

I thought there was a bug in other place, covered by
destroy_large_folio() but exposed by free_unref_folios()...


Regards
Yin, Fengwei

Re:

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 04:24:43PM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> > But if I run only with the deferred split fix and DO NOT revert the other
> > change, everything grinds to a halt when swapping 2M pages. Sometimes with RCU
> > stalls where I can't even interact on the serial port. Sometimes (more usually)
> > everything just gets stuck trying to reclaim and allocate memory. And when I
> > kill the jobs, I still have barely any memory in the system - about 10% what I
> > would expect.

(for the benefit of anyone trying to follow along, this is now
understood; it was my missing folio_put() in the 'folio_trylock failed'
path)

> I notice that before the commit, large folios are uncharged with
> __mem_cgroup_uncharge() and now they use __mem_cgroup_uncharge_folios().
> 
> The former has an upfront check:
> 
> 	if (!folio_memcg(folio))
> 		return;
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what that's checking but could the fact this is missing
> after the change cause things to go wonky?

Honestly, I think that's stale.  uncharge_folio() checks the same
thing very early on, so all it's actually saving is a test of the LRU
flag.

Looks like the need for it went away in 2017 with commit a9d5adeeb4b2c73c
which stopped using page->lru to gather the single page onto a
degenerate list.  I'll try to remember to submit a patch to delete
that check.

By the way, something we could try to see if the problem goes away is to
re-narrow the window that i widened.  ie something like this:

+++ b/mm/swap.c
@@ -1012,6 +1012,8 @@ void folios_put_refs(struct folio_batch *folios, unsigned int *refs)
                        free_huge_folio(folio);
                        continue;
                }
+               if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
+                       folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);

                __page_cache_release(folio, &lruvec, &flags);

Re:

[Ryan Roberts]

On 07/03/2024 15:24, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 07/03/2024 14:05, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 09:50:09PM +0800, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/7/2024 4:56 PM,  wrote:
>>>> I just want to make sure I've understood correctly: CPU1's folio_put()
>>>> is not the last reference, and it keeps iterating through the local
>>>> list. Then CPU2 does the final folio_put() which causes list_del_init()
>>>> to modify the local list concurrently with CPU1's iteration, so CPU1
>>>> probably goes into the weeds?
>>>
>>> My understanding is this can not corrupt the folio->deferred_list as
>>> this folio was iterated already.
>>
>> I am not convinced about that at all.  It's possible this isn't the only
>> problem, but deleting something from a list without holding (the correct)
>> lock is something you have to think incredibly hard about to get right.
>> I didn't bother going any deeper into the analysis once I spotted the
>> locking problem, but the proof is very much on you that this is not a bug!
>>
>>> But I did see other strange thing:
>>> [   76.269942] page: refcount:0 mapcount:1 mapping:0000000000000000
>>> index:0xffffbd0a0 pfn:0x2554a0
>>> [   76.270483] note: kcompactd0[62] exited with preempt_count 1
>>> [   76.271344] head: order:0 entire_mapcount:1 nr_pages_mapped:0 pincount:0
>>>
>>> This large folio has order 0? Maybe folio->_flags_1 was screwed?
>>>
>>> In free_unref_folios(), there is code like following:
>>>                 if (order > 0 && folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
>>>                         folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
>>>
>>> But with destroy_large_folio():
>>>         if (folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
>>>
>>> 			folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
>>>
>>> Can it connect to the folio has zero refcount still in deferred list
>>> with Matthew's patch?
>>>
>>>
>>> Looks like folio order was cleared unexpected somewhere.
> 
> I think there could be something to this...
> 
> I have a set up where, when running with Matthew's deferred split fix AND have
> commit 31b2ff82aefb "mm: handle large folios in free_unref_folios()" REVERTED,
> everything works as expected. And at the end, I have the expected amount of
> memory free (seen in meminfo and buddyinfo).
> 
> But if I run only with the deferred split fix and DO NOT revert the other
> change, everything grinds to a halt when swapping 2M pages. Sometimes with RCU
> stalls where I can't even interact on the serial port. Sometimes (more usually)
> everything just gets stuck trying to reclaim and allocate memory. And when I
> kill the jobs, I still have barely any memory in the system - about 10% what I
> would expect.
> 
> So is it possible that after commit 31b2ff82aefb "mm: handle large folios in
> free_unref_folios()", when freeing 2M folio back to the buddy, we are actually
> only telling it about the first 4K page? So we end up leaking the rest?

I notice that before the commit, large folios are uncharged with
__mem_cgroup_uncharge() and now they use __mem_cgroup_uncharge_folios().

The former has an upfront check:

	if (!folio_memcg(folio))
		return;

I'm not exactly sure what that's checking but could the fact this is missing
after the change cause things to go wonky?


> 
>>
>> No, we intentionally clear it:
>>
>> free_unref_folios -> free_unref_page_prepare -> free_pages_prepare ->
>> page[1].flags &= ~PAGE_FLAGS_SECOND;
>>
>> PAGE_FLAGS_SECOND includes the order, which is why we have to save it
>> away in folio->private so that we know what it is in the second loop.
>> So it's always been cleared by the time we call free_page_is_bad().
> 

Re:

[Ryan Roberts]

On 07/03/2024 14:05, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 09:50:09PM +0800, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/7/2024 4:56 PM,  wrote:
>>> I just want to make sure I've understood correctly: CPU1's folio_put()
>>> is not the last reference, and it keeps iterating through the local
>>> list. Then CPU2 does the final folio_put() which causes list_del_init()
>>> to modify the local list concurrently with CPU1's iteration, so CPU1
>>> probably goes into the weeds?
>>
>> My understanding is this can not corrupt the folio->deferred_list as
>> this folio was iterated already.
> 
> I am not convinced about that at all.  It's possible this isn't the only
> problem, but deleting something from a list without holding (the correct)
> lock is something you have to think incredibly hard about to get right.
> I didn't bother going any deeper into the analysis once I spotted the
> locking problem, but the proof is very much on you that this is not a bug!
> 
>> But I did see other strange thing:
>> [   76.269942] page: refcount:0 mapcount:1 mapping:0000000000000000
>> index:0xffffbd0a0 pfn:0x2554a0
>> [   76.270483] note: kcompactd0[62] exited with preempt_count 1
>> [   76.271344] head: order:0 entire_mapcount:1 nr_pages_mapped:0 pincount:0
>>
>> This large folio has order 0? Maybe folio->_flags_1 was screwed?
>>
>> In free_unref_folios(), there is code like following:
>>                 if (order > 0 && folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
>>                         folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
>>
>> But with destroy_large_folio():
>>         if (folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
>>
>> 			folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
>>
>> Can it connect to the folio has zero refcount still in deferred list
>> with Matthew's patch?
>>
>>
>> Looks like folio order was cleared unexpected somewhere.

I think there could be something to this...

I have a set up where, when running with Matthew's deferred split fix AND have
commit 31b2ff82aefb "mm: handle large folios in free_unref_folios()" REVERTED,
everything works as expected. And at the end, I have the expected amount of
memory free (seen in meminfo and buddyinfo).

But if I run only with the deferred split fix and DO NOT revert the other
change, everything grinds to a halt when swapping 2M pages. Sometimes with RCU
stalls where I can't even interact on the serial port. Sometimes (more usually)
everything just gets stuck trying to reclaim and allocate memory. And when I
kill the jobs, I still have barely any memory in the system - about 10% what I
would expect.

So is it possible that after commit 31b2ff82aefb "mm: handle large folios in
free_unref_folios()", when freeing 2M folio back to the buddy, we are actually
only telling it about the first 4K page? So we end up leaking the rest?

> 
> No, we intentionally clear it:
> 
> free_unref_folios -> free_unref_page_prepare -> free_pages_prepare ->
> page[1].flags &= ~PAGE_FLAGS_SECOND;
> 
> PAGE_FLAGS_SECOND includes the order, which is why we have to save it
> away in folio->private so that we know what it is in the second loop.
> So it's always been cleared by the time we call free_page_is_bad().

Re:

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 09:50:09PM +0800, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/7/2024 4:56 PM,  wrote:
> > I just want to make sure I've understood correctly: CPU1's folio_put()
> > is not the last reference, and it keeps iterating through the local
> > list. Then CPU2 does the final folio_put() which causes list_del_init()
> > to modify the local list concurrently with CPU1's iteration, so CPU1
> > probably goes into the weeds?
> 
> My understanding is this can not corrupt the folio->deferred_list as
> this folio was iterated already.

I am not convinced about that at all.  It's possible this isn't the only
problem, but deleting something from a list without holding (the correct)
lock is something you have to think incredibly hard about to get right.
I didn't bother going any deeper into the analysis once I spotted the
locking problem, but the proof is very much on you that this is not a bug!

> But I did see other strange thing:
> [   76.269942] page: refcount:0 mapcount:1 mapping:0000000000000000
> index:0xffffbd0a0 pfn:0x2554a0
> [   76.270483] note: kcompactd0[62] exited with preempt_count 1
> [   76.271344] head: order:0 entire_mapcount:1 nr_pages_mapped:0 pincount:0
> 
> This large folio has order 0? Maybe folio->_flags_1 was screwed?
> 
> In free_unref_folios(), there is code like following:
>                 if (order > 0 && folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
>                         folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
> 
> But with destroy_large_folio():
>         if (folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
> 
> 			folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);
> 
> Can it connect to the folio has zero refcount still in deferred list
> with Matthew's patch?
> 
> 
> Looks like folio order was cleared unexpected somewhere.

No, we intentionally clear it:

free_unref_folios -> free_unref_page_prepare -> free_pages_prepare ->
page[1].flags &= ~PAGE_FLAGS_SECOND;

PAGE_FLAGS_SECOND includes the order, which is why we have to save it
away in folio->private so that we know what it is in the second loop.
So it's always been cleared by the time we call free_page_is_bad().

Re:

[Yin, Fengwei]

On 3/7/2024 4:56 PM,  wrote:
> I just want to make sure I've understood correctly: CPU1's folio_put()
> is not the last reference, and it keeps iterating through the local
> list. Then CPU2 does the final folio_put() which causes list_del_init()
> to modify the local list concurrently with CPU1's iteration, so CPU1
> probably goes into the weeds?

My understanding is this can not corrupt the folio->deferred_list as
this folio was iterated already.


But I did see other strange thing:
[   76.269942] page: refcount:0 mapcount:1 mapping:0000000000000000 
index:0xffffbd0a0 pfn:0x2554a0
[   76.270483] note: kcompactd0[62] exited with preempt_count 1
[   76.271344] head: order:0 entire_mapcount:1 nr_pages_mapped:0 pincount:0

This large folio has order 0? Maybe folio->_flags_1 was screwed?

In free_unref_folios(), there is code like following:
                 if (order > 0 && folio_test_large_rmappable(folio))
                         folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);

But with destroy_large_folio():
         if (folio_test_large_rmappable(folio)) 

			folio_undo_large_rmappable(folio);

Can it connect to the folio has zero refcount still in deferred list
with Matthew's patch?


Looks like folio order was cleared unexpected somewhere.

Regards
Yin, Fengwei

Re:

[Dave Chinner]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 02:13:23AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> writes:
> 
> > Thoughts, comments, etc?
> 
> The interesting part is if it will cause additional tail latencies
> allocating under fragmentation with direct reclaim, compaction
> etc. being triggered before it falls back to the base page path.

It's not like I don't know these problems exist with memory
allocation. Go have a look at xlog_kvmalloc() which is an open coded
kvmalloc() that allows the high order kmalloc allocations to
fail-fast without triggering all the expensive and unnecessary
direct reclaim overhead (e.g. compaction!) because we can fall back
to vmalloc without huge concerns. When high order allocations start
to fail, then we fall back to vmalloc and then we hit the long
standing vmalloc scalability problems before anything else in XFS or
the IO path becomes a bottleneck.

IOWs, we already know that fail-fast high-order allocation is a more
efficient and effective fast path than using vmalloc/vmap_ram() all
the time. As this is an RFC, I haven't implemented stuff like this
yet - I haven't seen anything in the profiles indicating that high
order folio allocation is failing and causing lots of reclaim
overhead, so I simply haven't added fail-fast behaviour yet...

> In fact it is highly likely it will, the question is just how bad it is.
> 
> Unfortunately benchmarking for that isn't that easy, it needs artificial
> memory fragmentation and then some high stress workload, and then
> instrumenting the transactions for individual latencies. 

I stress test and measure XFS metadata performance under sustained
memory pressure all the time. This change has not caused any
obvious regressions in the short time I've been testing it.

I still need to do perf testing on large directory block sizes. That
is where high-order allocations will get stressed - that's where
xlog_kvmalloc() starts dominating the profiles as it trips over
vmalloc scalability issues...

> I would in any case add a tunable for it in case people run into this.

No tunables. It either works or it doesn't. If we can't make
it work reliably by default, we throw it in the dumpster, light it
on fire and walk away.

> Tail latencies are a common concern on many IO workloads.

Yes, for user data operations it's a common concern. For metadata,
not so much - there's so many far worse long tail latencies in
metadata operations (like waiting for journal space) that memory
allocation latencies in the metadata IO path are largely noise....

-Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

Re:

[Ryan Roberts]

My appologies for the noise: A blank line between Cc and Subject has broken the
subject and grouping in lore.

Please Ignore this, I will resend.


On 11/05/2023 13:58, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 11:38:28 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH v1 0/5] Encapsulate PTE contents from non-arch code
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> This series improves the encapsulation of pte entries by disallowing non-arch
> code from directly dereferencing pte_t pointers. Instead code must use a new
> helper, `pte_t ptep_deref(pte_t *ptep)`. By default, this helper does a direct
> dereference of the pointer, so generated code should be exactly the same. But
> it's presence sets us up for arch code being able to override the default to
> "virtualize" the ptes without needing to maintain a shadow table.
> 
> I intend to take advantage of this for arm64 to enable use of its "contiguous
> bit" to coalesce multiple ptes into a single tlb entry, reducing pressure and
> improving performance. I have an RFC for the first part of this work at [1]. The
> cover letter there also explains the second part, which this series is enabling.
> 
> I intend to post an RFC for the contpte changes in due course, but it would be
> good to get the ball rolling on this enabler.
> 
> There are 2 reasons that I need the encapsulation:
> 
>   - Prevent leaking the arch-private PTE_CONT bit to the core code. If the core
>     code reads a pte that contains this bit, it could end up calling
>     set_pte_at() with the bit set which would confuse the implementation. So we
>     can always clear PTE_CONT in ptep_deref() (and ptep_get()) to avoid a leaky
>     abstraction.
>   - Contiguous ptes have a single access and dirty bit for the contiguous range.
>     So we need to "mix-in" those bits when the core is dereferencing a pte that
>     lies in the contig range. There is code that dereferences the pte then takes
>     different actions based on access/dirty (see e.g. write_protect_page()).
> 
> While ptep_get() and ptep_get_lockless() already exist, both of them are
> implemented using READ_ONCE() by default. While we could use ptep_get() instead
> of the new ptep_deref(), I didn't want to risk performance regression.
> Alternatively, all call sites that currently use ptep_get() that need the
> lockless behaviour could be upgraded to ptep_get_lockless() and ptep_get() could
> be downgraded to a simple dereference. That would be cleanest, but is a much
> bigger (and likely error prone) change because all the arch code would need to
> be updated for the new definitions of ptep_get().
> 
> The series is split up as follows:
> 
> patchs 1-2: Fix bugs where code was _setting_ ptes directly, rather than using
>             set_pte_at() and friends.
> patch 3:    Fix highmem unmapping issue I spotted while doing the work.
> patch 4:    Introduce the new ptep_deref() helper with default implementation.
> patch 5:    Convert all direct dereferences to use ptep_deref().
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230414130303.2345383-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com/
> 
> Thanks,
> Ryan
> 
> 
> Ryan Roberts (5):
>   mm: vmalloc must set pte via arch code
>   mm: damon must atomically clear young on ptes and pmds
>   mm: Fix failure to unmap pte on highmem systems
>   mm: Add new ptep_deref() helper to fully encapsulate pte_t
>   mm: ptep_deref() conversion
> 
>  .../drm/i915/gem/selftests/i915_gem_mman.c    |   8 +-
>  drivers/misc/sgi-gru/grufault.c               |   2 +-
>  drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c               |   7 +-
>  drivers/xen/privcmd.c                         |   2 +-
>  fs/proc/task_mmu.c                            |  33 +++---
>  fs/userfaultfd.c                              |   6 +-
>  include/linux/hugetlb.h                       |   2 +-
>  include/linux/mm_inline.h                     |   2 +-
>  include/linux/pgtable.h                       |  13 ++-
>  kernel/events/uprobes.c                       |   2 +-
>  mm/damon/ops-common.c                         |  18 ++-
>  mm/damon/ops-common.h                         |   4 +-
>  mm/damon/paddr.c                              |   6 +-
>  mm/damon/vaddr.c                              |  14 ++-
>  mm/filemap.c                                  |   2 +-
>  mm/gup.c                                      |  21 ++--
>  mm/highmem.c                                  |  12 +-
>  mm/hmm.c                                      |   2 +-
>  mm/huge_memory.c                              |   4 +-
>  mm/hugetlb.c                                  |   2 +-
>  mm/hugetlb_vmemmap.c                          |   6 +-
>  mm/kasan/init.c                               |   9 +-
>  mm/kasan/shadow.c                             |  10 +-
>  mm/khugepaged.c                               |  24 ++--
>  mm/ksm.c                                      |  22 ++--
>  mm/madvise.c                                  |   6 +-
>  mm/mapping_dirty_helpers.c                    |   4 +-
>  mm/memcontrol.c                               |   4 +-
>  mm/memory-failure.c                           |   6 +-
>  mm/memory.c                                   | 103 +++++++++---------
>  mm/mempolicy.c                                |   6 +-
>  mm/migrate.c                                  |  14 ++-
>  mm/migrate_device.c                           |  14 ++-
>  mm/mincore.c                                  |   2 +-
>  mm/mlock.c                                    |   6 +-
>  mm/mprotect.c                                 |   8 +-
>  mm/mremap.c                                   |   2 +-
>  mm/page_table_check.c                         |   4 +-
>  mm/page_vma_mapped.c                          |  26 +++--
>  mm/pgtable-generic.c                          |   2 +-
>  mm/rmap.c                                     |  32 +++---
>  mm/sparse-vmemmap.c                           |   8 +-
>  mm/swap_state.c                               |   4 +-
>  mm/swapfile.c                                 |  16 +--
>  mm/userfaultfd.c                              |   4 +-
>  mm/vmalloc.c                                  |  11 +-
>  mm/vmscan.c                                   |  14 ++-
>  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c                           |   9 +-
>  48 files changed, 302 insertions(+), 236 deletions(-)
> 
> --
> 2.25.1
> 

Re:

[Zach O'Keefe]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 2:47 PM Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Zach,
>
> I did a quick look at the series, basically no show stopper to me. But
> I didn't find time to review them thoroughly yet, quite busy on
> something else. Just a heads up, I didn't mean to ignore you. I will
> review them when I find some time.
>
> Thanks,
> Yang

Hey Yang,

Thanks for taking the time to look through, and thanks for giving me a
heads up, and no rush!

In the last day or so, while porting this series around, I encountered
some subtle edge cases I wanted to clean up / address - so it's good
you didn't do a thorough review yet. I was *hoping* to have a v3 out
last night (which evidently did not happen) and it does not seem like
it will happen today, so I'll leave this message as a request for
reviewers to hold off on a thorough review until v3.

Thanks for your time as always,
Zach

Re:

[Yang Shi]

Hi Zach,

I did a quick look at the series, basically no show stopper to me. But
I didn't find time to review them thoroughly yet, quite busy on
something else. Just a heads up, I didn't mean to ignore you. I will
review them when I find some time.

Thanks,
Yang

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 3:03 PM Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@google.com> wrote:
>
> Subject: [PATCH mm-unstable v2 0/9] mm: add file/shmem support to MADV_COLLAPSE
>
> v2 Forward
>
> Mostly a RESEND: rebase on latest mm-unstable + minor bug fixes from
> kernel test robot.
> --------------------------------
>
> This series builds on top of the previous "mm: userspace hugepage collapse"
> series which introduced the MADV_COLLAPSE madvise mode and added support
> for private, anonymous mappings[1], by adding support for file and shmem
> backed memory to CONFIG_READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS=y kernels.
>
> File and shmem support have been added with effort to align with existing
> MADV_COLLAPSE semantics and policy decisions[2].  Collapse of shmem-backed
> memory ignores kernel-guiding directives and heuristics including all
> sysfs settings (transparent_hugepage/shmem_enabled), and tmpfs huge= mount
> options (shmem always supports large folios).  Like anonymous mappings, on
> successful return of MADV_COLLAPSE on file/shmem memory, the contents of
> memory mapped by the addresses provided will be synchronously pmd-mapped
> THPs.
>
> This functionality unlocks two important uses:
>
> (1)     Immediately back executable text by THPs.  Current support provided
>         by CONFIG_READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS may take a long time on a large
>         system which might impair services from serving at their full rated
>         load after (re)starting.  Tricks like mremap(2)'ing text onto
>         anonymous memory to immediately realize iTLB performance prevents
>         page sharing and demand paging, both of which increase steady state
>         memory footprint.  Now, we can have the best of both worlds: Peak
>         upfront performance and lower RAM footprints.
>
> (2)     userfaultfd-based live migration of virtual machines satisfy UFFD
>         faults by fetching native-sized pages over the network (to avoid
>         latency of transferring an entire hugepage).  However, after guest
>         memory has been fully copied to the new host, MADV_COLLAPSE can
>         be used to immediately increase guest performance.
>
> khugepaged has received a small improvement by association and can now
> detect and collapse pte-mapped THPs.  However, there is still work to be
> done along the file collapse path.  Compound pages of arbitrary order still
> needs to be supported and THP collapse needs to be converted to using
> folios in general.  Eventually, we'd like to move away from the read-only
> and executable-mapped constraints currently imposed on eligible files and
> support any inode claiming huge folio support.  That said, I think the
> series as-is covers enough to claim that MADV_COLLAPSE supports file/shmem
> memory.
>
> Patches 1-3     Implement the guts of the series.
> Patch 4         Is a tracepoint for debugging.
> Patches 5-8     Refactor existing khugepaged selftests to work with new
>                 memory types.
> Patch 9         Adds a userfaultfd selftest mode to mimic a functional test
>                 of UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_MINOR+MADV_COLLAPSE live migration.
>
> Applies against mm-unstable.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220706235936.2197195-1-zokeefe@google.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/YtBmhaiPHUTkJml8@google.com/
>
> v1 -> v2:
> - Add missing definition for khugepaged_add_pte_mapped_thp() in
>   !CONFIG_SHEM builds, in "mm/khugepaged: attempt to map
>   file/shmem-backed pte-mapped THPs by pmds"
> - Minor bugfixes in "mm/madvise: add file and shmem support to
>   MADV_COLLAPSE" for !CONFIG_SHMEM, !CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE and some
>   compiler settings.
> - Rebased on latest mm-unstable
>
> Zach O'Keefe (9):
>   mm/shmem: add flag to enforce shmem THP in hugepage_vma_check()
>   mm/khugepaged: attempt to map file/shmem-backed pte-mapped THPs by
>     pmds
>   mm/madvise: add file and shmem support to MADV_COLLAPSE
>   mm/khugepaged: add tracepoint to hpage_collapse_scan_file()
>   selftests/vm: dedup THP helpers
>   selftests/vm: modularize thp collapse memory operations
>   selftests/vm: add thp collapse file and tmpfs testing
>   selftests/vm: add thp collapse shmem testing
>   selftests/vm: add selftest for MADV_COLLAPSE of uffd-minor memory
>
>  include/linux/khugepaged.h                    |  13 +-
>  include/linux/shmem_fs.h                      |  10 +-
>  include/trace/events/huge_memory.h            |  36 +
>  kernel/events/uprobes.c                       |   2 +-
>  mm/huge_memory.c                              |   2 +-
>  mm/khugepaged.c                               | 289 ++++--
>  mm/shmem.c                                    |  18 +-
>  tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile           |   2 +
>  tools/testing/selftests/vm/khugepaged.c       | 828 ++++++++++++------
>  tools/testing/selftests/vm/soft-dirty.c       |   2 +-
>  .../selftests/vm/split_huge_page_test.c       |  12 +-
>  tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c      | 171 +++-
>  tools/testing/selftests/vm/vm_util.c          |  36 +-
>  tools/testing/selftests/vm/vm_util.h          |   5 +-
>  14 files changed, 1040 insertions(+), 386 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.37.2.672.g94769d06f0-goog
>

Re:

[SeongJae Park]

From: SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.de>

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 13:19:21 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:42:40 +0000 SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > +config PAGE_IDLE_FLAG
> > > +       bool "Add PG_idle and PG_young flags"
> > > +       help
> > > +         This feature adds PG_idle and PG_young flags in 'struct page'.  PTE
> > > +         Accessed bit writers can set the state of the bit in the flags to let
> > > +         other PTE Accessed bit readers don't disturbed.
> > > 
> > > This needs to be converted to proper, or at least comprehensible, English....
> > 
> > Thank you for the comment.
> > 
> > How about below?
> > 
> > --- a/mm/Kconfig
> > +++ b/mm/Kconfig
> > @@ -743,9 +743,9 @@ config PAGE_IDLE_FLAG
> >         bool "Add PG_idle and PG_young flags"
> >         select PAGE_EXTENSION if !64BIT
> >         help
> > -         This feature adds PG_idle and PG_young flags in 'struct page'.  PTE
> > -         Accessed bit writers can set the state of the bit in the flags to let
> > -         other PTE Accessed bit readers don't disturbed.
> > +         This feature adds 'PG_idle' and 'PG_young' flags in 'struct page'.
> > +         PTE Accessed bit writers can save the state of the bit in the flags
> > +         to let other PTE Accessed bit readers don't get disturbed.
> 
> How about this?
> 
> --- a/mm/Kconfig~mm-idle_page_tracking-make-pg_idle-reusable-fix-fix
> +++ a/mm/Kconfig
> @@ -743,9 +743,9 @@ config PAGE_IDLE_FLAG
>  	bool "Add PG_idle and PG_young flags"
>  	select PAGE_EXTENSION if !64BIT
>  	help
> -	  This feature adds PG_idle and PG_young flags in 'struct page'.  PTE
> -	  Accessed bit writers can set the state of the bit in the flags to let
> -	  other PTE Accessed bit readers don't disturbed.
> +	  This adds PG_idle and PG_young flags to 'struct page'.  PTE Accessed
> +	  bit writers can set the state of the bit in the flags so that PTE
> +	  Accessed bit readers may avoid disturbance.
>  
>  config IDLE_PAGE_TRACKING
>  	bool "Enable idle page tracking"

So good, thank you!

> 
> Also, is there any way in which we can avoid presenting this option to
> the user?  Because most users will have real trouble understanding what
> this thing is for.  Can we simply select it when needed, as dictated by
> other, higher-level config options?

I believe this is the right way to go!  I sent a patch for removing the prompt
of this option:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210813081238.34705-1-sj38.park@gmail.com/


Thanks,
SeongJae Park

Re:

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:42:40 +0000 SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com> wrote:

> > +config PAGE_IDLE_FLAG
> > +       bool "Add PG_idle and PG_young flags"
> > +       help
> > +         This feature adds PG_idle and PG_young flags in 'struct page'.  PTE
> > +         Accessed bit writers can set the state of the bit in the flags to let
> > +         other PTE Accessed bit readers don't disturbed.
> > 
> > This needs to be converted to proper, or at least comprehensible, English....
> 
> Thank you for the comment.
> 
> How about below?
> 
> --- a/mm/Kconfig
> +++ b/mm/Kconfig
> @@ -743,9 +743,9 @@ config PAGE_IDLE_FLAG
>         bool "Add PG_idle and PG_young flags"
>         select PAGE_EXTENSION if !64BIT
>         help
> -         This feature adds PG_idle and PG_young flags in 'struct page'.  PTE
> -         Accessed bit writers can set the state of the bit in the flags to let
> -         other PTE Accessed bit readers don't disturbed.
> +         This feature adds 'PG_idle' and 'PG_young' flags in 'struct page'.
> +         PTE Accessed bit writers can save the state of the bit in the flags
> +         to let other PTE Accessed bit readers don't get disturbed.

How about this?

--- a/mm/Kconfig~mm-idle_page_tracking-make-pg_idle-reusable-fix-fix
+++ a/mm/Kconfig
@@ -743,9 +743,9 @@ config PAGE_IDLE_FLAG
 	bool "Add PG_idle and PG_young flags"
 	select PAGE_EXTENSION if !64BIT
 	help
-	  This feature adds PG_idle and PG_young flags in 'struct page'.  PTE
-	  Accessed bit writers can set the state of the bit in the flags to let
-	  other PTE Accessed bit readers don't disturbed.
+	  This adds PG_idle and PG_young flags to 'struct page'.  PTE Accessed
+	  bit writers can set the state of the bit in the flags so that PTE
+	  Accessed bit readers may avoid disturbance.
 
 config IDLE_PAGE_TRACKING
 	bool "Enable idle page tracking"

Also, is there any way in which we can avoid presenting this option to
the user?  Because most users will have real trouble understanding what
this thing is for.  Can we simply select it when needed, as dictated by
other, higher-level config options?

Re:

[SeongJae Park]

From: SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.de>

Hello Valdis,

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 05:21:57 -0400 "Valdis =?utf-8?Q?Kl=c4=93tnieks?=" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:

> In this commit:
> 
> commit fedc37448fb1be5d03e420ca7791d4286893d5ec
> Author: SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.de>
> Date:   Tue Aug 10 16:55:51 2021 +1000
> 
>     mm/idle_page_tracking: make PG_idle reusable
> 
> diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig
> index 504336de9a1e..d0b85dc12429 100644
> --- a/mm/Kconfig
> +++ b/mm/Kconfig
> @@ -739,10 +739,18 @@ config DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT
>           lifetime of the system until these kthreads finish the
>           initialisation.
> 
> +config PAGE_IDLE_FLAG
> +       bool "Add PG_idle and PG_young flags"
> +       help
> +         This feature adds PG_idle and PG_young flags in 'struct page'.  PTE
> +         Accessed bit writers can set the state of the bit in the flags to let
> +         other PTE Accessed bit readers don't disturbed.
> 
> This needs to be converted to proper, or at least comprehensible, English....

Thank you for the comment.

How about below?

--- a/mm/Kconfig
+++ b/mm/Kconfig
@@ -743,9 +743,9 @@ config PAGE_IDLE_FLAG
        bool "Add PG_idle and PG_young flags"
        select PAGE_EXTENSION if !64BIT
        help
-         This feature adds PG_idle and PG_young flags in 'struct page'.  PTE
-         Accessed bit writers can set the state of the bit in the flags to let
-         other PTE Accessed bit readers don't disturbed.
+         This feature adds 'PG_idle' and 'PG_young' flags in 'struct page'.
+         PTE Accessed bit writers can save the state of the bit in the flags
+         to let other PTE Accessed bit readers don't get disturbed.


Thanks,
SeongJae Park

Re:

[Vladimir Davydov]

On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:44:29PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-07-03 14:14:29 [-0700], Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > > Reply-To: "[PATCH 0/4] mm/list_lru": add.list_lru_shrink_walk_irq@mail.linuxfoundation.org.and.use.it ()
> > 
> > Well that's messed up.
> 
> indeed it is. This should get into Subject:
> 
> > On Tue,  3 Jul 2018 16:52:31 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > My intepretation of situtation is that Vladimir Davydon is fine patch #1
> > > and #2 of the series [0] but dislikes the irq argument and struct
> > > member. It has been suggested to use list_lru_shrink_walk_irq() instead
> > > the approach I went on in "mm: list_lru: Add lock_irq member to
> > > __list_lru_init()".
> > > 
> > > This series is based on the former two patches and introduces
> > > list_lru_shrink_walk_irq() (and makes the third patch of series
> > > obsolete).
> > > In patch 1-3 I tried a tiny cleanup so the different locking
> > > (spin_lock() vs spin_lock_irq()) is simply lifted to the caller of the
> > > function.
> > > 
> > > [0] The patch
> > >       mm: workingset: remove local_irq_disable() from count_shadow_nodes() 
> > >    and
> > >       mm: workingset: make shadow_lru_isolate() use locking suffix
> > > 
> > 
> > This isn't a very informative [0/n] changelog.  Some overall summary of
> > the patchset's objective, behaviour, use cases, testing results, etc.
> 
> The patches should be threaded as a reply to 3/3 of the series so I
> assumed it was enough. And while Vladimir complained about 2/3 and 3/3
> the discussion went on in 2/3 where he suggested to go on with the _irq
> function. And testing, well with and without RT the function was invoked
> as part of swapping (allocating memory until OOM) without complains.
> 
> > I'm seeing significant conflicts with Kirill's "Improve shrink_slab()
> > scalability (old complexity was O(n^2), new is O(n))" series, which I
> > merged eight milliseconds ago.  Kirill's patchset is large but fairly
> > straightforward so I expect it's good for 4.18.  So I suggest we leave
> > things a week or more then please take a look at redoing this patchset
> > on top of that work?  
> 
> If Vladimir is okay with to redo and nobody else complains then I could
> rebase these four patches on top of your tree next week.

IMHO this approach is more straightforward than the one with the per
list_lru flag. For all patches,

Reviewed-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>

Re:

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2018-07-03 14:14:29 [-0700], Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > Reply-To: "[PATCH 0/4] mm/list_lru": add.list_lru_shrink_walk_irq@mail.linuxfoundation.org.and.use.it ()
> 
> Well that's messed up.

indeed it is. This should get into Subject:

> On Tue,  3 Jul 2018 16:52:31 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > My intepretation of situtation is that Vladimir Davydon is fine patch #1
> > and #2 of the series [0] but dislikes the irq argument and struct
> > member. It has been suggested to use list_lru_shrink_walk_irq() instead
> > the approach I went on in "mm: list_lru: Add lock_irq member to
> > __list_lru_init()".
> > 
> > This series is based on the former two patches and introduces
> > list_lru_shrink_walk_irq() (and makes the third patch of series
> > obsolete).
> > In patch 1-3 I tried a tiny cleanup so the different locking
> > (spin_lock() vs spin_lock_irq()) is simply lifted to the caller of the
> > function.
> > 
> > [0] The patch
> >       mm: workingset: remove local_irq_disable() from count_shadow_nodes() 
> >    and
> >       mm: workingset: make shadow_lru_isolate() use locking suffix
> > 
> 
> This isn't a very informative [0/n] changelog.  Some overall summary of
> the patchset's objective, behaviour, use cases, testing results, etc.

The patches should be threaded as a reply to 3/3 of the series so I
assumed it was enough. And while Vladimir complained about 2/3 and 3/3
the discussion went on in 2/3 where he suggested to go on with the _irq
function. And testing, well with and without RT the function was invoked
as part of swapping (allocating memory until OOM) without complains.

> I'm seeing significant conflicts with Kirill's "Improve shrink_slab()
> scalability (old complexity was O(n^2), new is O(n))" series, which I
> merged eight milliseconds ago.  Kirill's patchset is large but fairly
> straightforward so I expect it's good for 4.18.  So I suggest we leave
> things a week or more then please take a look at redoing this patchset
> on top of that work?  

If Vladimir is okay with to redo and nobody else complains then I could
rebase these four patches on top of your tree next week.

Sebastian

Re:

[Andrew Morton]

> Reply-To: "[PATCH 0/4] mm/list_lru": add.list_lru_shrink_walk_irq@mail.linuxfoundation.org.and.use.it ()

Well that's messed up.

On Tue,  3 Jul 2018 16:52:31 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:

> My intepretation of situtation is that Vladimir Davydon is fine patch #1
> and #2 of the series [0] but dislikes the irq argument and struct
> member. It has been suggested to use list_lru_shrink_walk_irq() instead
> the approach I went on in "mm: list_lru: Add lock_irq member to
> __list_lru_init()".
> 
> This series is based on the former two patches and introduces
> list_lru_shrink_walk_irq() (and makes the third patch of series
> obsolete).
> In patch 1-3 I tried a tiny cleanup so the different locking
> (spin_lock() vs spin_lock_irq()) is simply lifted to the caller of the
> function.
> 
> [0] The patch
>       mm: workingset: remove local_irq_disable() from count_shadow_nodes() 
>    and
>       mm: workingset: make shadow_lru_isolate() use locking suffix
> 

This isn't a very informative [0/n] changelog.  Some overall summary of
the patchset's objective, behaviour, use cases, testing results, etc.

I'm seeing significant conflicts with Kirill's "Improve shrink_slab()
scalability (old complexity was O(n^2), new is O(n))" series, which I
merged eight milliseconds ago.  Kirill's patchset is large but fairly
straightforward so I expect it's good for 4.18.  So I suggest we leave
things a week or more then please take a look at redoing this patchset
on top of that work?  

Re:

[Andrey Ryabinin]

On 06/28/2018 06:48 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:

>> Hi,
>> This bug was found in Linux Kernel v4.18-rc2
>>
>> $ cat report0 
>> ================================================================================
>> UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in mm/fadvise.c:76:10
>> signed integer overflow:
>> 4 + 9223372036854775805 cannot be represented in type 'long long int'
>> CPU: 0 PID: 13477 Comm: syz-executor1 Not tainted 4.18.0-rc1 #2
>> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
>> rel-1.10.2-0-g5f4c7b1-prebuilt.qemu-project.org 04/01/2014
>> Call Trace:
>>  __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
>>  dump_stack+0x122/0x1c8 lib/dump_stack.c:113
>>  ubsan_epilogue+0x12/0x86 lib/ubsan.c:159
>>  handle_overflow+0x1c2/0x21f lib/ubsan.c:190
>>  __ubsan_handle_add_overflow+0x2a/0x31 lib/ubsan.c:198
>>  ksys_fadvise64_64+0xbf0/0xd10 mm/fadvise.c:76
>>  __do_sys_fadvise64 mm/fadvise.c:198 [inline]
>>  __se_sys_fadvise64 mm/fadvise.c:196 [inline]
>>  __x64_sys_fadvise64+0xa9/0x120 mm/fadvise.c:196
>>  do_syscall_64+0xb8/0x3a0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:290
> 
> That overflow is deliberate:
> 
> 	endbyte = offset + len;
> 	if (!len || endbyte < len)
> 		endbyte = -1;
> 	else
> 		endbyte--;		/* inclusive */
> 
> Or is there a hole in this logic?
> 
> If not, I guess ee can do this another way to keep the checker happy.
 
It should be enough to make overflow unsigned. Unsigned overflow is defined by the C standard.

RE:

[Royal VIP Casino]

How about a hulking cock? Interested? Check Penis Enlarge Patch out.

http://www.zcukchud.com/

With Penis Enlarge Patch your dick will be growing<BR>so fast you wont be able to record the exact size.














------------------------
disrespect  for the girl. See how it looks in print -- I translate this froma conversation in one of the best of the German Sunday-school books:    Gretchen. Wilhelm, where is the turnip?     Wilhelm. She has gone to the kitchen.     Gretchen. Where is the accomplished and beautiful English maiden?
describe? And  observe  the strongest of  the several German equ                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Re:

[Joseph A Knapka]

Hi Gavin,

[Forwarded to linux-mm, since those guys will be able to
 answer your questions much more completely. Maybe someone
 has already solved your problem.]

Gavin Dolling wrote:
> 
> Your VM page has helped me immensely. I'm after so advice though about the
> following. No problem if you are too busy, etc. your site has already helped
> me a great deal so just hit that delete key now ...
> 
> I have an embedded linux system running out of 8M of RAM. It has no backing
> store and uses a RAM disk as its FS. It boots from a flash chip - at boot
> time things are uncompressed into RAM. Running an MTD type system with a
> flash FS is not an option.
> 
> Memory is very tight and it is unfortunate that the binaries effectively
> appear twice in memory. They are in the RAM FS in full and also get paged
> into memory. There is a lot of paging going on which I believe is drowning
> the system.
> 
> We have no swap file (that would obviously be stupid) but a large number of
> buffers (i.e. a lot of dirty pages). The application is networking stuff so
> it is supposed to perform at line rate - the paging appears to be preventing
> this.
> 
> What I wish to do is to page the user space binaries into the page cache,
> mark them so they are never evicted. Delete them from the RAMFS and recover
> the memory. This should be the most optimum way of running the system - in
> terms of memory usage anyway.
> 
> I am planning to hack filemap.c. Going to use page_cache_read on each binary
> and then remove from RAM FS. If the page is not in use I will have to make
> sure that deleting the file does not result in the page being evicted.
> Basically some more hacking required. I am also concerned about the inode
> associated with the page, this is going to cause me pain I think?
> 
> I am going to try this on my PC first. Going to try and force 'cat' to be
> fully paged in and then rename it. I should still be able to use cat at the
> command line.

I don't think this will work as a test case. The address_space mappings
are based on inode identity, and since you won't actually have
a "cat" program on your filesystem, the inode won't be found, so
the kernel will not have a way of knowing that the cached pages
are the right ones. You'd have to leave at least enough of the
filesystem intact for the kernel to be able to map the program
name to the correct inode. You might solve this by pinning the
inode buffers in main memory before reclaiming the RAMFS pages,
but that's pure speculation on my part.

> So basically:
> 
> a) Is this feasible?

See below.

> b) When I delete the binary can I prevent it from being evicted from the
> page cache?
> (I note with interest that if I mv my /usr/bin/emacs whilst emacs is running
>       e.g.   $ emacs &; mv /usr/bin/emacs /usr/bin/emacs2
> it allows me to do it and what's more nothing bad happens. This tells me I
> do not understand enough of what is going on - I would have expected this to
> fail in some manner).

The disk inode for a moved or deleted file (and the file's disk
blocks) don't get freed until all references to the inode are
gone. If the kernel has the file open (eg due to mmap()),
the file can still be used for paging until it's unmapped
by all the processes that are using it. (This is another
reason your test case above might be misleading.)

> c) I must have to leave something in the RAMFS such that the instance of the
> binary still exists even if not its whole content.
> 
> d) Am I insane to try this? (Why would be more useful than just a yes ;-)  )

I don't know. This is a deeper hack than any I've contemplated.
However, I'm tempted to say that it would be easier to figure
out a way to directly add the RAMFS pages to the page cache,
and thus use a single page simultaneously as a cache page and
an FS page. I don't know how hard that's going to be, but I
think it might be easier than trying to yank the FS out from
under an in-use mapping.

Cheers,

-- Joe
# "You know how many remote castles there are along the
#  gorges? You can't MOVE for remote castles!" - Lu Tze re. Uberwald
# Linux MM docs:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jknapka/linux-mm/vmoutline.html
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/