From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56F1C4708F for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:59:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F360613F1 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:59:48 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3F360613F1 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id AA8B36B006C; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 08:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A7FDC6B006E; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 08:59:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 96F986B0070; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 08:59:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0225.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.225]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66CC16B006C for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 08:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin04.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E66C6DE09 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:59:46 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78208790772.04.390BB1F Received: from out30-130.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-130.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.130]) by imf24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2EFA000271 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:59:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R481e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04426;MF=xuyu@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=10;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0Ub3L1eD_1622638773; Received: from xuyu-mbp15.local(mailfrom:xuyu@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0Ub3L1eD_1622638773) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Wed, 02 Jun 2021 20:59:41 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, thp: relax migration wait when failed to get tail page To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Hugh Dickins , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, gavin.dg@linux.alibaba.com, Greg Thelen , Wei Xu , Nicholas Piggin , Vlastimil Babka References: <71c320bf-3fcb-f8c0-65e4-ff706af05607@linux.alibaba.com> From: Yu Xu Message-ID: <1c6b8331-3b74-83fd-abdb-4d7d8f19eb9d@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 20:59:33 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 6E2EFA000271 Authentication-Results: imf24.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf24.hostedemail.com: domain of xuyu@linux.alibaba.com designates 115.124.30.130 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=xuyu@linux.alibaba.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=alibaba.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Stat-Signature: 5kh7fq1g8yk9nk777h3boa8668o873ac X-HE-Tag: 1622638772-772090 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000003, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 6/2/21 7:58 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:27:47AM +0800, Yu Xu wrote: >> On 6/2/21 3:10 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote: >>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 09:55:56AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Well caught: you're absolutely right that there's a bug there. >>>>> But isn't cond_resched() just papering over the real bug, and >>>>> what it should do is a "page = compound_head(page);" before the >>>>> get_page_unless_zero()? How does that work out in your testing? >>>> >>>> You do realise you're strengthening my case for folios by suggesting >>>> that, don't you? ;-) >>> >>> Hah! Well, I do realize that I'm offering you a marketing opportunity. >>> And you won't believe how many patches I dread to post for fear of that ;-) >>> >>> But I'm not so sure that it strengthens your case: apparently folios >>> had not detected this? Or do you have a hoard of folio-detected fixes >>> waiting for the day, and a folio-kit for each of the stable releases? >>> >>>> >>>> I was going to suggest that it won't make any difference because the >>>> page reference count is frozen, but the freezing happens after the call >>>> to unmap_page(), so it may make a difference. >>> >>> I think that's a good point: I may have just jumped on the missing >>> compound_head(), without thinking it through as far as you have. >>> >>> I'm having trouble remembering the dynamics now; but I think there >>> are cond_resched()s in the unmap_page() part, so the splitter may >>> get preempted even on a non-preempt kernel; whereas the frozen >>> part is all done expeditiously, with interrupts disabled. >>> >>> Greg discovered the same issue recently, but we all got sidetracked, >>> and I don't know where his investigation ended up. He was in favour >>> of cond_resched(), I was in favour of compound_head(); and I think I >> >> I ever considered about using compound_head, but isn't there another >> race that, the following put_and_wait_on_page_locked operates on the >> "tail page" which has been split and is now a single page? > > No, having your own reference on a page prevents the page from being > split. But that's a good question to ask. Thanks. I have recalled that head page is frozen when splitting THP. -- Thanks, Yu