From: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix long time stall from mm_populate
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 10:14:58 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkqexeZEWEr2aZj78Pg6ktL5jhZx1OdssxnoU9t+kW3bdA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200211172803.GA7778@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 9:28 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 08:34:04AM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 04:23:23AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 08:25:36PM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 07:54:12PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 07:50:04PM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 05:10:21PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 04:19:58PM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > > filemap_fault
> > > > > > > > find a page form page(PG_uptodate|PG_readahead|PG_writeback)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Uh ... That shouldn't be possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please see shrink_page_list. Vmscan uses PG_reclaim to accelerate
> > > > > > page reclaim when the writeback is done so the page will have both
> > > > > > flags at the same time and the PG reclaim could be regarded as
> > > > > > PG_readahead in fault conext.
> > > > >
> > > > > What part of fault context can make that mistake? The snippet I quoted
> > > > > below is from page_cache_async_readahead() where it will clearly not
> > > > > make that mistake. There's a lot of code here; please don't presume I
> > > > > know all the areas you're talking about.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry about being not clear. I am saying filemap_fault ->
> > > > do_async_mmap_readahead
> > > >
> > > > Let's assume the page is hit in page cache and vmf->flags is !FAULT_FLAG
> > > > TRIED so it calls do_async_mmap_readahead. Since the page has PG_reclaim
> > > > and PG_writeback by shrink_page_list, it goes to
> > > >
> > > > do_async_mmap_readahead
> > > > if (PageReadahead(page))
> > > > fpin = maybe_unlock_mmap_for_io();
> > > > page_cache_async_readahead
> > > > if (PageWriteback(page))
> > > > return;
> > > > ClearPageReadahead(page); <- doesn't reach here until the writeback is clear
> > > >
> > > > So, mm_populate will repeat the loop until the writeback is done.
> > > > It's my just theory but didn't comfirm it by the testing.
> > > > If I miss something clear, let me know it.
> > >
> > > Ah! Surely the right way to fix this is ...
> >
> > I'm not sure it's right fix. Actually, I wanted to remove PageWriteback check
> > in page_cache_async_readahead because I don't see corelation. Why couldn't we
> > do readahead if the marker page is PG_readahead|PG_writeback design PoV?
> > Only reason I can think of is it makes *a page* will be delayed for freeing
> > since we removed PG_reclaim bit, which would be over-optimization for me.
>
> You're confused. Because we have a shortage of bits in the page flags,
> we use the same bit for both PageReadahead and PageReclaim. That doesn't
> mean that a page marked as PageReclaim should be treated as PageReadahead.
>
> > Other concern is isn't it's racy? IOW, page was !PG_writeback at the check below
> > in your snippet but it was under PG_writeback in page_cache_async_readahead and
> > then the IO was done before refault reaching the code again. It could be repeated
> > *theoretically* even though it's very hard to happen in real practice.
> > Thus, I think it would be better to remove PageWriteback check from
> > page_cache_async_readahead if we really want to go the approach.
>
> PageReclaim is always cleared before PageWriteback. eg here:
>
> void end_page_writeback(struct page *page)
> ...
> if (PageReclaim(page)) {
> ClearPageReclaim(page);
> rotate_reclaimable_page(page);
> }
>
> if (!test_clear_page_writeback(page))
> BUG();
>
> so if PageWriteback is clear, PageReclaim must already be observable as clear.
Not sure if the below race in vmscan matters or not.
if (PageWriteback(page)) {
[snip]
/* Case 2 above */
} else if (writeback_throttling_sane(sc) ||
!PageReclaim(page) || !may_enter_fs) {
/*
* This is slightly racy - end_page_writeback()
* might have just cleared PageReclaim, then
* setting PageReclaim here end up interpreted
* as PageReadahead - but that does not matter
* enough to care. What we do want is for this
* page to have PageReclaim set next time memcg
* reclaim reaches the tests above, so it will
* then wait_on_page_writeback() to avoid OOM;
* and it's also appropriate in global reclaim.
*/
SetPageReclaim(page);
stat->nr_writeback++;
goto activate_locked;
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-11 18:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-11 0:19 [PATCH] mm: fix long time stall from mm_populate Minchan Kim
2020-02-11 1:10 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-02-11 3:50 ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-11 3:54 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-02-11 4:25 ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-11 12:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-02-11 16:34 ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-11 17:28 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-02-11 17:57 ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-12 10:18 ` Jan Kara
2020-02-12 17:40 ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-12 18:28 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-02-12 19:53 ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-12 22:24 ` Andrew Morton
2020-02-12 23:12 ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-13 2:00 ` Andrew Morton
2020-02-13 17:24 ` Minchan Kim
2020-02-11 18:14 ` Yang Shi [this message]
2020-02-12 10:22 ` Jan Kara
2020-02-12 17:43 ` Minchan Kim
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=CAHbLzkqexeZEWEr2aZj78Pg6ktL5jhZx1OdssxnoU9t+kW3bdA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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).