From: "Zi Yan" <ziy@nvidia.com>
To: "Yang Shi" <shy828301@gmail.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
"Wang Yugui" <wangyugui@e16-tech.com>,
"Hugh Dickins" <hughd@google.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Linux MM" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: thp: check total_mapcount instead of page_mapcount
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 18:30:50 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <07E637C5-3FCD-4D78-936F-186FD051D6A9@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHbLzkqC8bdWtCMigmef4n0KwxKo4UuWoP1xphJiQgYChBB62Q@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3848 bytes --]
On 30 Apr 2021, at 17:56, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 2:30 PM Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Apr 2021, at 17:07, Yang Shi wrote:
>>
>>> When debugging the bug reported by Wang Yugui [1], try_to_unmap() may
>>> return false positive for PTE-mapped THP since page_mapcount() is used
>>> to check if the THP is unmapped, but it just checks compound mapount and
>>> head page's mapcount. If the THP is PTE-mapped and head page is not
>>> mapped, it may return false positive.
>>>
>>> Use total_mapcount() instead of page_mapcount() and do so for the
>>> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE in split_huge_page_to_list as well.
>>>
>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210412180659.B9E3.409509F4@e16-tech.com/
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> mm/huge_memory.c | 2 +-
>>> mm/rmap.c | 2 +-
>>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>> index 63ed6b25deaa..2122c3e853b9 100644
>>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>> @@ -2718,7 +2718,7 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list(struct page *page, struct list_head *list)
>>> }
>>>
>>> unmap_page(head);
>>> - VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(compound_mapcount(head), head);
>>> + VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(total_mapcount(head), head);
>>
>> I am not sure about this change. The code below also checks total_mapcount(head)
>> and returns EBUSY if the count is non-zero. This change makes the code dead.
>
> It is actually dead if CONFIG_DEBUG_VM is enabled and total_mapcount
> is not 0 regardless of this change due to the below code, right?
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_VM) && mapcount) {
> pr_alert("total_mapcount: %u, page_count(): %u\n",
> mapcount, count);
> if (PageTail(page))
> dump_page(head, NULL);
> dump_page(page, "total_mapcount(head) > 0");
> BUG();
> }
Right. But with this change, mapcount will never be non-zero. The code above
will be useless and can be removed.
>> On the other hand, the change will force all mappings to the page have to be
>> successfully unmapped all the time. I am not sure if we want to do that.
>> Maybe it is better to just check total_mapcount() and fail the split.
>> The same situation happens with the code change below.
>
> IIUC, the code did force all mappings to the page to be unmapped in
> order to split it.
>>
>>>
>>> /* block interrupt reentry in xa_lock and spinlock */
>>> local_irq_disable();
>>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>>> index 693a610e181d..2e547378ab5f 100644
>>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>>> @@ -1777,7 +1777,7 @@ bool try_to_unmap(struct page *page, enum ttu_flags flags)
>>> else
>>> rmap_walk(page, &rwc);
>>>
>>> - return !page_mapcount(page) ? true : false;
>>> + return !total_mapcount(page) ? true : false;
>>> }
>>
>> In unmap_page(), VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!unmap_success, page) will force all mappings
>> to the page have to be all unmapped, which might not be the case we want.
>
> AFAICT, I don't see such a case from all the callers of
> try_to_unmap(). Imay miss something, but I do have a hard time
> thinking of a usecase which can proceed safely with "not fully
> unmapped" page.
This code change is correct, but after the change unmap_page() will fire VM_BUG_ON
when not all mappings are unmapped. Along with the change above, we will have
two identical VM_BUG_ONs happen one after another. We might want to remove one
of them.
Also, this changes the semantics of try_to_unmap. The comment for try_to_unmap
might need to be updated.
—
Best Regards,
Yan Zi
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 854 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-30 22:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-30 21:07 Yang Shi
2021-04-30 21:30 ` Zi Yan
2021-04-30 21:56 ` Yang Shi
2021-04-30 22:30 ` Zi Yan [this message]
2021-04-30 22:55 ` Yang Shi
2021-04-30 23:02 ` Zi Yan
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=07E637C5-3FCD-4D78-936F-186FD051D6A9@nvidia.com \
--to=ziy@nvidia.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=wangyugui@e16-tech.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