Re: [PATCH v6v3 02/12] mm: migrate: support non-lru movable page migration

[Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 06/16/2016 11:07 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:12:07AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 06/16/2016 05:56 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:15:04PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> On 06/15/2016 08:02 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 03:08:19PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/31/2016 05:31 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> @@ -791,6 +921,7 @@ static int __unmap_and_move(struct page *page, struct page *newpage,
>>>>>>>>>  	int rc = -EAGAIN;
>>>>>>>>>  	int page_was_mapped = 0;
>>>>>>>>>  	struct anon_vma *anon_vma = NULL;
>>>>>>>>> +	bool is_lru = !__PageMovable(page);
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>  	if (!trylock_page(page)) {
>>>>>>>>>  		if (!force || mode == MIGRATE_ASYNC)
>>>>>>>>> @@ -871,6 +1002,11 @@ static int __unmap_and_move(struct page *page, struct page *newpage,
>>>>>>>>>  		goto out_unlock_both;
>>>>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> +	if (unlikely(!is_lru)) {
>>>>>>>>> +		rc = move_to_new_page(newpage, page, mode);
>>>>>>>>> +		goto out_unlock_both;
>>>>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Minchan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I might be missing something here but does this implementation support the
>>>>>>> scenario where these non LRU pages owned by the driver mapped as PTE into
>>>>>>> process page table ? Because the "goto out_unlock_both" statement above
>>>>>>> skips all the PTE unmap, putting a migration PTE and removing the migration
>>>>>>> PTE steps.
>>>>> You're right. Unfortunately, it doesn't support right now but surely,
>>>>> it's my TODO after landing this work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you share your usecase?
>>>>
>>>> Sure.
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> My driver has privately managed non LRU pages which gets mapped into user space
>>>> process page table through f_ops->mmap() and vmops->fault() which then updates
>>>> the file RMAP (page->mapping->i_mmap) through page_add_file_rmap(page). One thing
>>>
>>> Hmm, page_add_file_rmap is not exported function. How does your driver can use it?
>>
>> Its not using the function directly, I just re-iterated the sequence of functions
>> above. (do_set_pte -> page_add_file_rmap) gets called after we grab the page from
>> driver through (__do_fault->vma->vm_ops->fault()).
>>
>>> Do you use vm_insert_pfn?
>>> What type your vma is? VM_PFNMMAP or VM_MIXEDMAP?
>>
>> I dont use vm_insert_pfn(). Here is the sequence of events how the user space
>> VMA gets the non LRU pages from the driver.
>>
>> - Driver registers a character device with 'struct file_operations' binding
>> - Then the 'fops->mmap()' just binds the incoming 'struct vma' with a 'struct
>>   vm_operations_struct' which provides the 'vmops->fault()' routine which
>>   basically traps all page faults on the VMA and provides one page at a time
>>   through a driver specific allocation routine which hands over non LRU pages
>>
>> The VMA is not anything special as such. Its what we get when we try to do a
>> simple mmap() on a file descriptor pointing to a character device. I can
>> figure out all the VM_* flags it holds after creation.
>>
>>>
>>> I want to make dummy driver to simulate your case.
>>
>> Sure. I hope the above mentioned steps will help you but in case you need more
>> information, please do let me know.
> 
> I got understood now. :)
> I will test it with dummy driver and will Cc'ed when I send a patch.

Hello Minchan,

Do you have any updates on this ? The V7 of the series still has this limitation.
Did you get a chance to test the driver out ? I am still concerned about how to
handle the struct address_space override problem within the struct page.

- Anshuman