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=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 5CE1BC4727D for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:22:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C29C206C3 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:22:09 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8C29C206C3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id ADE936B0055; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 05:22:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A8E7B6B005C; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 05:22:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9A5116B005D; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 05:22:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0032.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.32]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A856B0055 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 05:22:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F67AC0C for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:22:08 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77293784736.22.skate17_471545b27155 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220F918038E60 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:22:08 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: skate17_471545b27155 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3762 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf32.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:22:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F97DAE93; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:22:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by quack2.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A01361E12E3; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:22:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:22:05 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: John Hubbard Cc: Jan Kara , Peter Xu , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Michal Hocko , Kirill Shutemov , Jann Horn , Oleg Nesterov , Kirill Tkhai , Hugh Dickins , Leon Romanovsky , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Jason Gunthorpe , Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] mm/thp: Split huge pmds/puds if they're pinned when fork() Message-ID: <20200923092205.GA6719@quack2.suse.cz> References: <20200921211744.24758-1-peterx@redhat.com> <20200921212031.25233-1-peterx@redhat.com> <5e594e71-537f-3e9f-85b6-034b7f5fedbe@nvidia.com> <20200922103315.GD15112@quack2.suse.cz> <4a65586e-9282-beb0-1880-1ef8da03727c@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4a65586e-9282-beb0-1880-1ef8da03727c@nvidia.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue 22-09-20 13:01:13, John Hubbard wrote: > On 9/22/20 3:33 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Mon 21-09-20 23:41:16, John Hubbard wrote: > > > On 9/21/20 2:20 PM, Peter Xu wrote: > > > ... > > > > + if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(src_mm->has_pinned) && > > > > + page_maybe_dma_pinned(src_page))) { > > > > > > This condition would make a good static inline function. It's used in 3 > > > places, and the condition is quite special and worth documenting, and > > > having a separate function helps with that, because the function name > > > adds to the story. I'd suggest approximately: > > > > > > page_likely_dma_pinned() > > > > > > for the name. > > > > Well, but we should also capture that this really only works for anonymous > > pages. For file pages mm->has_pinned does not work because the page may be > > still pinned by completely unrelated process as Jann already properly > > pointed out earlier in the thread. So maybe anon_page_likely_pinned()? > > Possibly also assert PageAnon(page) in it if we want to be paranoid... > > > > Honza > > The file-backed case doesn't really change anything, though: > page_maybe_dma_pinned() is already a "fuzzy yes" in the same sense: you > can get a false positive. Just like here, with an mm->has_pinned that > could be a false positive for a process. > > And for that reason, I'm also not sure an "assert PageAnon(page)" is > desirable. That assertion would prevent file-backed callers from being > able to call a function that provides a fuzzy answer, but I don't see > why you'd want or need to do that. The goal here is to make the fuzzy > answer a little bit more definite, but it's not "broken" just because > the result is still fuzzy, right? > > Apologies if I'm missing a huge point here... :) But the problem is that if you apply mm->has_pinned check on file pages, you can get false negatives now. And that's not acceptable... Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR