Linux-mm Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: "Li Xinhai" <lixinhai.lxh@gmail.com>
To: "HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)" <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>,
	"yang.shi" <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
	"Mike Kravetz" <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	 akpm <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,  mhocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	 n-horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/mempolicy: Skip walking HUGETLB vma if MPOL_MF_STRICT is specified alone
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 23:32:33 +0800
Message-ID: <20200116233231408902133@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200116080729.GA19016@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>

On 2020-01-16 at 16:07 HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>Thank you all for finding and digging the issue.
>
>> Summary
>> =======
>> It 'looks' like the statement "MPOL_MF_STRICT is ignored on huge page
>> mappings." is left over from the original mbind implementation.  When
>> the huge page migration support was added, I can not be sure if ignoring
>> MPOL_MF_STRICT for huge pages during the verify/isolation phase was
>> intentional.  It seems like it was as the return value from
>> isolate_huge_page() is ignored.
>
>This summary is totally correct.  I've simply missed considering MPOL_MF_STRICT
>flag when implementing hugetlb migration.  As you pointed out, the discrepacy
>between the manpage and the code is also due to the lack of updates on the
>"MPOL_MF_STRICT is ignored on huge page mappings." statement.
>
>On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 01:59:14PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
>>
>> On 1/15/20 1:45 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> > On 1/15/20 1:30 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
>> > > On 1/15/20 1:07 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> > > > What should we do?
>> > > > ==================
>> > > > 1) Nothing more than optimizations by Li Xinhai.  Behavior that could be
>> > > >      seen as conflicting with man page has existed since v3.12 and I am
>> > > >      not aware of any complaints.
>> > > > 2) In addition to optimizations by Li Xinhai, modify code to truly ignore
>> > > >      MPOL_MF_STRICT for huge page mappings.  This would be fairly easy to do
>> > > >      after a failure of migrate_pages().  We could simply traverse the list
>> > > >      of pages that were not migrated looking for any non-hugetlb page.
>> > > I don't think we can do this easily since migrate_pages() would put the migration failed hugetlb pages back to hugepage_activelist so there should not any hugetlb page reside on the pagelist regardless of failure if I read the code correctly.
>
>Although this behavior seems to me not prevent from finding non-hugetlb
>pages in migration list, this is a difference in migration behavior between
>normal pages and hugepages that might be better to be optimized.
>Maybe hugepages failed to migrate should remain in migration list after
>migrate_pages() returns and the should be put back via putback_movable_pages().
>
>> > >
>> > You are correct.  I made an assumption without actually looking at the code. :(
>> >
>> > > Other than that traversing page list to look for a certain type page doesn't sound scalable to me.
>> > >
>> > > > 3) Remove the statement "MPOL_MF_STRICT is ignored on huge page mappings."
>> > > >      and modify code accordingly.
>> > > >
>> > > > My suggestion would be for 1 or 2.  Thoughts?
>> > > By rethinking the history (thanks again for digging into it), it sounds #3 should be more reasonable. It sounds like the behavior was changed since hugetlb migration was added but the man page was not updated to reflect the change.
>> > >
>> > Let's hope Naoya comments.  My only concern with #3 is that we will be changing
>> > behavior.  I do not think many people (if any) depend on existing behavior.
>> > However, you can never be sure.
>>
>> Yes, this would change the bahavior, but I don't see why we have to treat
>> hugetlb specially nowadays with migration supported.
>
>(Option #1 is good for short term solution, but eventually) I agree with option #3.
>We have no reason to handle hugetlb differently about MPOL_MF_STRICT flag. 

Thanks. Same thoughts for option #3, but it seems better not change current
behavior. 
Add more about current behavior of code:
- In unmap&move phase, there is no different behavior of handling hugepage
and non-hugepage, that is when STRICT is set, report -EIO if any page
can't move, when STRICT is not set, don't report when failed to move;
- In isolation phase, STRICT is effective for non-hugepge, that means set
STRICT alone will cause -EIO if found misplaced pages, and set STRICT with
MOVE* will cause -EIO if failed to isolate pages; for hugepage, STRICT is
ignored, it don't detect misplaced pages nor report -EIO if isolation failed.

This patch don't change any part of current behavior, only avoids walking
page table, where currently do nothing if STRICT is set alone.

>
>Thanks,
>Naoya Horiguchi

  reply index

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-14  9:16 [PATCH 1/2] mm/mempolicy: Checking hstate for hugetlbfs page in vma_migratable Li Xinhai
2020-01-14  9:16 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm/mempolicy: Skip walking HUGETLB vma if MPOL_MF_STRICT is specified alone Li Xinhai
2020-01-14 14:09   ` Li Xinhai
2020-01-14 18:27     ` Yang Shi
2020-01-15  1:07     ` Mike Kravetz
2020-01-15  1:24       ` Yang Shi
2020-01-15  4:28         ` Mike Kravetz
2020-01-15  5:23           ` Yang Shi
2020-01-15  7:36             ` Li Xinhai
2020-01-15 17:16               ` Yang Shi
2020-01-15 21:07       ` Mike Kravetz
2020-01-15 21:30         ` Yang Shi
2020-01-15 21:45           ` Mike Kravetz
2020-01-15 21:59             ` Yang Shi
2020-01-16  8:07               ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
2020-01-16 15:32                 ` Li Xinhai [this message]
2020-01-16  7:59         ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-16 19:22           ` Mike Kravetz
2020-01-17  2:32             ` Yang Shi
2020-01-17  2:38             ` Li Xinhai
2020-01-17  7:57               ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-17 12:05                 ` Li Xinhai
2020-01-17 15:20                   ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-17 15:46                     ` Li Xinhai
2020-01-20 12:45                       ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-21 14:15                         ` Li Xinhai
2020-01-21 14:53                           ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-22 13:55                             ` Li Xinhai
2020-01-14 19:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm/mempolicy: Checking hstate for hugetlbfs page in vma_migratable Mike Kravetz
2020-01-15  1:25 ` Andrew Morton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=20200116233231408902133@gmail.com \
    --to=lixinhai.lxh@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
    --cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
    --cc=naoya.horiguchi@nec.com \
    --cc=yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com \
    /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

Linux-mm Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/0 linux-mm/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-mm linux-mm/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm \
		linux-mm@kvack.org
	public-inbox-index linux-mm

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kvack.linux-mm


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git