From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 16/22] mm/mlock: reorder isolation sequence during munlock
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 11:55:45 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6e37ee32-c6c5-fcc5-3cad-74f7ae41fb67@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKgT0Udcry01samXT54RkurNqFKnVmv-686ZFHF+iw4b+12T_A@mail.gmail.com>
在 2020/7/18 上午4:30, Alexander Duyck 写道:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 5:59 PM Alex Shi <alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>> This patch reorder the isolation steps during munlock, move the lru lock
>> to guard each pages, unfold __munlock_isolate_lru_page func, to do the
>> preparation for lru lock change.
>>
>> __split_huge_page_refcount doesn't exist, but we still have to guard
>> PageMlocked and PageLRU for tail page in __split_huge_page_tail.
>>
>> [lkp@intel.com: found a sleeping function bug ... at mm/rmap.c]
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
>> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
>> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
>> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> ---
>> mm/mlock.c | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/mlock.c b/mm/mlock.c
>> index 228ba5a8e0a5..0bdde88b4438 100644
>> --- a/mm/mlock.c
>> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
>> @@ -103,25 +103,6 @@ void mlock_vma_page(struct page *page)
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> - * Isolate a page from LRU with optional get_page() pin.
>> - * Assumes lru_lock already held and page already pinned.
>> - */
>> -static bool __munlock_isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, bool getpage)
>> -{
>> - if (TestClearPageLRU(page)) {
>> - struct lruvec *lruvec;
>> -
>> - lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, page_pgdat(page));
>> - if (getpage)
>> - get_page(page);
>> - del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_lru(page));
>> - return true;
>> - }
>> -
>> - return false;
>> -}
>> -
>> -/*
>> * Finish munlock after successful page isolation
>> *
>> * Page must be locked. This is a wrapper for try_to_munlock()
>> @@ -181,6 +162,7 @@ static void __munlock_isolation_failed(struct page *page)
>> unsigned int munlock_vma_page(struct page *page)
>> {
>> int nr_pages;
>> + bool clearlru = false;
>> pg_data_t *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
>>
>> /* For try_to_munlock() and to serialize with page migration */
>> @@ -189,32 +171,42 @@ unsigned int munlock_vma_page(struct page *page)
>> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageTail(page), page);
>>
>> /*
>> - * Serialize with any parallel __split_huge_page_refcount() which
>> + * Serialize split tail pages in __split_huge_page_tail() which
>> * might otherwise copy PageMlocked to part of the tail pages before
>> * we clear it in the head page. It also stabilizes hpage_nr_pages().
>> */
>> + get_page(page);
>
> I don't think this get_page() call needs to be up here. It could be
> left down before we delete the page from the LRU list as it is really
> needed to take a reference on the page before we call
> __munlock_isolated_page(), or at least that is the way it looks to me.
> By doing that you can avoid a bunch of cleanup in these exception
> cases.
Uh, It seems unlikely for !page->_refcount, and then got to release_pages(),
if so, get_page do could move down.
Thanks
>
>> + clearlru = TestClearPageLRU(page);
>
> I'm not sure I fully understand the reason for moving this here. By
> clearing this flag before you clear Mlocked does this give you some
> sort of extra protection? I don't see how since Mlocked doesn't
> necessarily imply the page is on LRU.
>
Above comments give a reason for the lru_lock usage,
>> + * Serialize split tail pages in __split_huge_page_tail() which
>> * might otherwise copy PageMlocked to part of the tail pages before
>> * we clear it in the head page. It also stabilizes hpage_nr_pages().
Look into the __split_huge_page_tail, there is a tiny gap between tail page
get PG_mlocked, and it is added into lru list.
The TestClearPageLRU could blocked memcg changes of the page from stopping
isolate_lru_page.
>> spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
>>
>> if (!TestClearPageMlocked(page)) {
>> - /* Potentially, PTE-mapped THP: do not skip the rest PTEs */
>> - nr_pages = 1;
>> - goto unlock_out;
>> + if (clearlru)
>> + SetPageLRU(page);
>> + /*
>> + * Potentially, PTE-mapped THP: do not skip the rest PTEs
>> + * Reuse lock as memory barrier for release_pages racing.
>> + */
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
>> + put_page(page);
>> + return 0;
>> }
>>
>> nr_pages = hpage_nr_pages(page);
>> __mod_zone_page_state(page_zone(page), NR_MLOCK, -nr_pages);
>>
>> - if (__munlock_isolate_lru_page(page, true)) {
>> + if (clearlru) {
>> + struct lruvec *lruvec;
>> +
>
> You could just place the get_page() call here.
>
>> + lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, page_pgdat(page));
>> + del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_lru(page));
>> spin_unlock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
>> __munlock_isolated_page(page);
>> - goto out;
>> + } else {
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
>> + put_page(page);
>> + __munlock_isolation_failed(page);
>
> If you move the get_page() as I suggested above there wouldn't be a
> need for the put_page(). It then becomes possible to simplify the code
> a bit by merging the unlock paths and doing an if/else with the
> __munlock functions like so:
> if (clearlru) {
> ...
> del_page_from_lru..
> }
>
> spin_unlock_irq()
>
> if (clearlru)
> __munlock_isolated_page();
> else
> __munlock_isolated_failed();
>
>> }
>> - __munlock_isolation_failed(page);
>> -
>> -unlock_out:
>> - spin_unlock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
>>
>> -out:
>> return nr_pages - 1;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -297,34 +289,51 @@ static void __munlock_pagevec(struct pagevec *pvec, struct zone *zone)
>> pagevec_init(&pvec_putback);
>>
>> /* Phase 1: page isolation */
>> - spin_lock_irq(&zone->zone_pgdat->lru_lock);
>> for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
>> struct page *page = pvec->pages[i];
>> + struct lruvec *lruvec;
>> + bool clearlru;
>>
>> - if (TestClearPageMlocked(page)) {
>> - /*
>> - * We already have pin from follow_page_mask()
>> - * so we can spare the get_page() here.
>> - */
>> - if (__munlock_isolate_lru_page(page, false))
>> - continue;
>> - else
>> - __munlock_isolation_failed(page);
>> - } else {
>> + clearlru = TestClearPageLRU(page);
>> + spin_lock_irq(&zone->zone_pgdat->lru_lock);
>
> I still don't see what you are gaining by moving the bit test up to
> this point. Seems like it would be better left below with the lock
> just being used to prevent a possible race while you are pulling the
> page out of the LRU list.
>
the same reason as above comments mentained __split_huge_page_tail()
issue.
>> +
>> + if (!TestClearPageMlocked(page)) {
>> delta_munlocked++;
>> + if (clearlru)
>> + SetPageLRU(page);
>> + goto putback;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!clearlru) {
>> + __munlock_isolation_failed(page);
>> + goto putback;
>> }
>
> With the other function you were processing this outside of the lock,
> here you are doing it inside. It would probably make more sense here
> to follow similar logic and take care of the del_page_from_lru_list
> ifr clealru is set, unlock, and then if clearlru is set continue else
> track the isolation failure. That way you can avoid having to use as
> many jump labels.
>
>> /*
>> + * Isolate this page.
>> + * We already have pin from follow_page_mask()
>> + * so we can spare the get_page() here.
>> + */
>> + lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, page_pgdat(page));
>> + del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_lru(page));
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&zone->zone_pgdat->lru_lock);
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + /*
>> * We won't be munlocking this page in the next phase
>> * but we still need to release the follow_page_mask()
>> * pin. We cannot do it under lru_lock however. If it's
>> * the last pin, __page_cache_release() would deadlock.
>> */
>> +putback:
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&zone->zone_pgdat->lru_lock);
>> pagevec_add(&pvec_putback, pvec->pages[i]);
>> pvec->pages[i] = NULL;
>> }
>> + /* tempary disable irq, will remove later */
>> + local_irq_disable();
>> __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_MLOCK, delta_munlocked);
>> - spin_unlock_irq(&zone->zone_pgdat->lru_lock);
>> + local_irq_enable();
>>
>> /* Now we can release pins of pages that we are not munlocking */
>> pagevec_release(&pvec_putback);
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1
>>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-19 3:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-11 0:58 [PATCH v16 00/22] per memcg lru_lock Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 01/22] mm/vmscan: remove unnecessary lruvec adding Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 02/22] mm/page_idle: no unlikely double check for idle page counting Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 03/22] mm/compaction: correct the comments of compact_defer_shift Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 04/22] mm/compaction: rename compact_deferred as compact_should_defer Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 05/22] mm/thp: move lru_add_page_tail func to huge_memory.c Alex Shi
2020-07-16 8:59 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-16 13:17 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2020-07-17 5:13 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-20 8:37 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 06/22] mm/thp: clean up lru_add_page_tail Alex Shi
2020-07-20 8:43 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 07/22] mm/thp: remove code path which never got into Alex Shi
2020-07-20 8:43 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 08/22] mm/thp: narrow lru locking Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 09/22] mm/memcg: add debug checking in lock_page_memcg Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 10/22] mm/swap: fold vm event PGROTATED into pagevec_move_tail_fn Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 11/22] mm/lru: move lru_lock holding in func lru_note_cost_page Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 12/22] mm/lru: move lock into lru_note_cost Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 13/22] mm/lru: introduce TestClearPageLRU Alex Shi
2020-07-16 9:06 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-16 21:12 ` Alexander Duyck
2020-07-17 7:45 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-17 18:26 ` Alexander Duyck
2020-07-19 4:45 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-19 11:24 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 14/22] mm/thp: add tail pages into lru anyway in split_huge_page() Alex Shi
2020-07-17 9:30 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-20 8:49 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2020-07-20 9:04 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 15/22] mm/compaction: do page isolation first in compaction Alex Shi
2020-07-16 21:32 ` Alexander Duyck
2020-07-17 5:09 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-17 16:09 ` Alexander Duyck
2020-07-19 3:59 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 16/22] mm/mlock: reorder isolation sequence during munlock Alex Shi
2020-07-17 20:30 ` Alexander Duyck
2020-07-19 3:55 ` Alex Shi [this message]
2020-07-20 18:51 ` Alexander Duyck
2020-07-21 9:26 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-21 13:51 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 17/22] mm/swap: serialize memcg changes during pagevec_lru_move_fn Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 18/22] mm/lru: replace pgdat lru_lock with lruvec lock Alex Shi
2020-07-17 21:38 ` Alexander Duyck
2020-07-18 14:15 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-19 9:12 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-19 15:14 ` Alexander Duyck
2020-07-20 5:47 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 19/22] mm/lru: introduce the relock_page_lruvec function Alex Shi
2020-07-17 22:03 ` Alexander Duyck
2020-07-18 14:01 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 20/22] mm/vmscan: use relock for move_pages_to_lru Alex Shi
2020-07-17 21:44 ` Alexander Duyck
2020-07-18 14:15 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 21/22] mm/pgdat: remove pgdat lru_lock Alex Shi
2020-07-17 21:09 ` Alexander Duyck
2020-07-18 14:17 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-11 0:58 ` [PATCH v16 22/22] mm/lru: revise the comments of lru_lock Alex Shi
2020-07-11 1:02 ` [PATCH v16 00/22] per memcg lru_lock Alex Shi
2020-07-16 8:49 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-16 14:11 ` Alexander Duyck
2020-07-17 5:24 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-19 15:23 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-20 3:01 ` Alex Shi
2020-07-20 4:47 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-20 7:30 ` Alex Shi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly 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=6e37ee32-c6c5-fcc5-3cad-74f7ae41fb67@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alexander.duyck@gmail.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=richard.weiyang@gmail.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).