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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 DCEEFC433F4 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 16:06:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B0920894 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 16:06:08 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 94B0920894 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727544AbeH1T61 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2018 15:58:27 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:50906 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726961AbeH1T61 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2018 15:58:27 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74665401EF0A; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 16:06:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-125-14.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.125.14]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA20A2166B41; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 16:06:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 12:06:03 -0400 From: Jerome Glisse To: Zi Yan Cc: Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Aneesh Kumar K . V" , Ralph Campbell , John Hubbard Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm/hmm: properly handle migration pmd Message-ID: <20180828160602.GB4029@redhat.com> References: <20180824192549.30844-1-jglisse@redhat.com> <20180824192549.30844-5-jglisse@redhat.com> <0560A126-680A-4BAE-8303-F1AB34BE4BA5@cs.rutgers.edu> <20180828152414.GQ10223@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180828153658.GA4029@redhat.com> <20180828154206.GR10223@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180828154555.GS10223@dhcp22.suse.cz> <44C89854-FE83-492F-B6BB-CF54B77233CF@cs.rutgers.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <44C89854-FE83-492F-B6BB-CF54B77233CF@cs.rutgers.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.6 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.5]); Tue, 28 Aug 2018 16:06:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.5]); Tue, 28 Aug 2018 16:06:05 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'10.11.54.6' DOMAIN:'int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com' HELO:'smtp.corp.redhat.com' FROM:'jglisse@redhat.com' RCPT:'' Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:54:33AM -0400, Zi Yan wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On 28 Aug 2018, at 11:45, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Tue 28-08-18 17:42:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> On Tue 28-08-18 11:36:59, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:24:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>>> On Fri 24-08-18 20:05:46, Zi Yan wrote: > >>>> [...] > >>>>>> + if (!pmd_present(pmd)) { > >>>>>> + swp_entry_t entry = pmd_to_swp_entry(pmd); > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> + if (is_migration_entry(entry)) { > >>>>> > >>>>> I think you should check thp_migration_supported() here, since PMD migration is only enabled in x86_64 systems. > >>>>> Other architectures should treat PMD migration entries as bad. > >>>> > >>>> How can we have a migration pmd entry when the migration is not > >>>> supported? > >>> > >>> Not sure i follow here, migration can happen anywhere (assuming > >>> that something like compaction is active or numa or ...). So this > >>> code can face pmd migration entry on architecture that support > >>> it. What is missing here is thp_migration_supported() call to > >>> protect the is_migration_entry() to avoid false positive on arch > >>> which do not support thp migration. > >> > >> I mean that architectures which do not support THP migration shouldn't > >> ever see any migration entry. So is_migration_entry should be always > >> false. Or do I miss something? > > > > And just to be clear. thp_migration_supported should be checked only > > when we actually _do_ the migration or evaluate migratability of the > > page. We definitely do want to sprinkle this check to all places where > > is_migration_entry is checked. > > is_migration_entry() is a general check for swp_entry_t, so it can return > true even if THP migration is not enabled. is_pmd_migration_entry() always > returns false when THP migration is not enabled. > > So the code can be changed in two ways, either replacing is_migration_entry() > with is_pmd_migration_entry() or adding thp_migration_supported() check > like Jerome did. > > Does this clarify your question? > Well looking back at code is_migration_entry() will return false on arch which do not have thp migration because pmd_to_swp_entry() will return swp_entry(0,0) which is can not be a valid migration entry. Maybe using is_pmd_migration_entry() would be better here ? It seems that is_pmd_migration_entry() is more common then the open coded thp_migration_supported() && is_migration_entry() Cheers, Jérôme