From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com,
willy@infradead.org, guro@fb.com, riel@surriel.com,
minchan@kernel.org, kirill@shutemov.name, aarcange@redhat.com,
christian@brauner.io, hch@infradead.org, oleg@redhat.com,
david@redhat.com, jannh@google.com, shakeelb@google.com,
luto@kernel.org, christian.brauner@ubuntu.com,
fweimer@redhat.com, jengelh@inai.de, timmurray@google.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/3] mm: drop MMF_OOM_SKIP from exit_mmap
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2021 21:59:55 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpEHJTqG+PkAPJknf5_41ZKFqjk8pY=gTg_VZgsfY-=9Tg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpGMTcyVikNrQR7Y1E54JAjgs5zFBry=DTDidJmD1YWpUg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 9:23 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 3:49 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 06:26:11PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 9:06 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 8:47 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu 09-12-21 08:24:04, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 1:12 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do we want this on top?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As we discussed in this thread
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/YY4snVzZZZYhbigV@dhcp22.suse.cz,
> > > > > > __oom_reap_task_mm in exit_mmap allows oom-reaper/process_mrelease to
> > > > > > unmap pages in parallel with exit_mmap without blocking each other.
> > > > > > Removal of __oom_reap_task_mm from exit_mmap prevents this parallelism
> > > > > > and has a negative impact on performance. So the conclusion of that
> > > > > > thread I thought was to keep that part. My understanding is that we
> > > > > > also wanted to remove MMF_OOM_SKIP as a follow-up patch but
> > > > > > __oom_reap_task_mm would stay.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, then we were talking past each other, I am afraid. I really wanted
> > > > > to get rid of this oom specific stuff from exit_mmap. It was there out
> > > > > of necessity. With a proper locking we can finally get rid of the crud.
> > > > > As I've said previously oom reaping has never been a hot path.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we really want to optimize this path then I would much rather see a
> > > > > generic solution which would allow to move the write lock down after
> > > > > unmap_vmas. That would require oom reaper to be able to handle mlocked
> > > > > memory.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, let's work on that and when that's done we can get rid of the oom
> > > > stuff in exit_mmap. I'll look into this over the weekend and will
> > > > likely be back with questions.
> > >
> > > As promised, I have a question:
> > > Any particular reason why munlock_vma_pages_range clears VM_LOCKED
> > > before unlocking pages and not after (see:
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/mm/mlock.c#L424)? Seems
> > > to me if VM_LOCKED was reset at the end (with proper ordering) then
> > > __oom_reap_task_mm would correctly skip VM_LOCKED vmas.
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180514064824.534798031@linuxfoundation.org/
> > > has this explanation:
> > >
> > > "Since munlock_vma_pages_range() depends on clearing VM_LOCKED from
> > > vm_flags before actually doing the munlock to determine if any other
> > > vmas are locking the same memory, the check for VM_LOCKED in the oom
> > > reaper is racy."
> > >
> > > but "to determine if any other vmas are locking the same memory"
> > > explanation eludes me... Any insights?
> >
> > A page's mlock state is determined by whether any of the vmas that map
> > it are mlocked. The munlock code does:
> >
> > vma->vm_flags &= VM_LOCKED_CLEAR_MASK
> > TestClearPageMlocked()
> > isolate_lru_page()
> > __munlock_isolated_page()
> > page_mlock()
> > rmap_walk() # for_each_vma()
> > page_mlock_one()
> > (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) && TestSetPageMlocked()
> >
> > If we didn't clear the VM_LOCKED flag first, racing threads could
> > re-lock pages under us because they see that flag and think our vma
> > wants those pages mlocked when we're in the process of munlocking.
>
> Thanks for the explanation Johannes!
> So far I didn't find an easy way to let __oom_reap_task_mm() run
> concurrently with unlock_range(). Will keep exploring.
After some more digging I think there are two acceptable options:
1. Call unlock_range() under mmap_write_lock and then downgrade it to
read lock so that both exit_mmap() and __oom_reap_task_mm() can unmap
vmas in parallel like this:
if (mm->locked_vm) {
mmap_write_lock(mm);
unlock_range(mm->mmap, ULONG_MAX);
mmap_write_downgrade(mm);
} else
mmap_read_lock(mm);
...
unmap_vmas(&tlb, vma, 0, -1);
mmap_read_unlock(mm);
mmap_write_lock(mm);
free_pgtables(&tlb, vma, FIRST_USER_ADDRESS, USER_PGTABLES_CEILING);
...
mm->mmap = NULL;
mmap_write_unlock(mm);
This way exit_mmap() might block __oom_reap_task_mm() but for a much
shorter time during unlock_range() call.
2. Introduce another vm_flag mask similar to VM_LOCKED which is set
before munlock_vma_pages_range() clears VM_LOCKED so that
__oom_reap_task_mm() can identify vmas being unlocked and skip them.
Option 1 seems cleaner to me because it keeps the locking pattern
around unlock_range() in exit_mmap() consistent with all other places
it is used (in mremap() and munmap()) with mmap_write_lock taken.
WDYT?
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-30 6:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-08 21:22 [PATCH v4 1/3] mm: protect free_pgtables with mmap_lock write lock in exit_mmap Suren Baghdasaryan
2021-12-08 21:22 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] mm: document locking restrictions for vm_operations_struct::close Suren Baghdasaryan
2021-12-09 8:55 ` Michal Hocko
2021-12-08 21:22 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] mm/oom_kill: allow process_mrelease to run under mmap_lock protection Suren Baghdasaryan
2021-12-09 8:59 ` Michal Hocko
2021-12-09 19:03 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2021-12-09 8:55 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] mm: protect free_pgtables with mmap_lock write lock in exit_mmap Michal Hocko
2021-12-09 19:03 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2021-12-10 9:20 ` Michal Hocko
2021-12-09 9:12 ` [PATCH 4/3] mm: drop MMF_OOM_SKIP from exit_mmap Michal Hocko
2021-12-09 16:24 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2021-12-09 16:47 ` Michal Hocko
2021-12-09 17:06 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2021-12-16 2:26 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2021-12-16 11:49 ` Johannes Weiner
2021-12-16 17:23 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2021-12-30 5:59 ` Suren Baghdasaryan [this message]
2021-12-30 8:24 ` Michal Hocko
2021-12-30 17:29 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2022-01-03 12:11 ` Michal Hocko
2022-01-03 21:16 ` Hugh Dickins
2022-01-04 22:24 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
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='CAJuCfpEHJTqG+PkAPJknf5_41ZKFqjk8pY=gTg_VZgsfY-=9Tg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=surenb@google.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=jengelh@inai.de \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=timmurray@google.com \
--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).