From: "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@intel.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
<linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <willy@infradead.org>,
<david@redhat.com>, <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, <shy828301@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] mm: mlock: update mlock_pte_range to handle large folio
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 09:52:58 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <65523232-58d4-a8c7-50ff-8f44f7ac23fc@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <79f6822-f2f8-aba4-b517-b661d07e2d@google.com>
On 7/19/2023 10:26 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023, Yin Fengwei wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Could this also happen against normal 4K page? I mean when user try to munlock
>>>>>>>>>>> a normal 4K page and this 4K page is isolated. So it become unevictable page?
>>>>>>>>>> Looks like it can be possible. If cpu 1 is in __munlock_folio() and
>>>>>>>>>> cpu 2 is isolating the folio for any purpose:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> cpu1 cpu2
>>>>>>>>>> isolate folio
>>>>>>>>>> folio_test_clear_lru() // 0
>>>>>>>>>> putback folio // add to unevictable list
>>>>>>>>>> folio_test_clear_mlocked()
>>>>>>> folio_set_lru()
>> Let's wait the response from Huge and Yu. :).
>
> I haven't been able to give it enough thought, but I suspect you are right:
> that the current __munlock_folio() is deficient when folio_test_clear_lru()
> fails.
>
> (Though it has not been reported as a problem in practice: perhaps because
> so few places try to isolate from the unevictable "list".)
>
> I forget what my order of development was, but it's likely that I first
> wrote the version for our own internal kernel - which used our original
> lruvec locking, which did not depend on getting PG_lru first (having got
> lru_lock, it checked memcg, then tried again if that had changed).
>
> I was uneasy with the PG_lru aspect of upstream lru_lock implementation,
> but it turned out to work okay - elsewhere; but it looks as if I missed
> its implication when adapting __munlock_page() for upstream.
>
> If I were trying to fix this __munlock_folio() race myself (sorry, I'm
> not), I would first look at that aspect: instead of folio_test_clear_lru()
> behaving always like a trylock, could "folio_wait_clear_lru()" or whatever
> spin waiting for PG_lru here?
Considering following sequence:
CPU1 (migration) CPU2 (mlock)
isolation page (clear lru) mlock_pte_range
try_to_migrate -> take_pte_lock
try_to_migrate_one munlock_folio
pvmw -> take pte lock __munlock_folio if batch full
folio_wait_clear_lru
deadlock may happen.
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
>
> Hugh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-20 1:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-12 6:01 [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] support large folio for mlock Yin Fengwei
2023-07-12 6:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] mm: add functions folio_in_range() and folio_within_vma() Yin Fengwei
2023-07-12 6:11 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-12 6:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] mm: handle large folio when large folio in VM_LOCKED VMA range Yin Fengwei
2023-07-12 6:23 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-12 6:43 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-12 17:03 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-13 1:55 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-14 2:21 ` Hugh Dickins
2023-07-14 2:49 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-14 3:41 ` Hugh Dickins
2023-07-14 5:45 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-12 6:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] mm: mlock: update mlock_pte_range to handle large folio Yin Fengwei
2023-07-12 6:31 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-15 6:06 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-16 23:59 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-17 0:35 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-17 1:58 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-18 22:48 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-07-18 23:47 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-19 1:32 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-07-19 1:52 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-07-19 1:57 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-19 2:00 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-07-19 2:09 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-19 2:22 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-07-19 2:28 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-19 14:26 ` Hugh Dickins
2023-07-19 15:44 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-07-20 12:02 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-20 20:51 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-07-21 1:12 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-21 1:35 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-07-21 3:18 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-21 3:39 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-07-20 1:52 ` Yin, Fengwei [this message]
2023-07-17 8:12 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-18 2:06 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-18 3:59 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-26 12:49 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-26 16:57 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-27 0:15 ` Yin Fengwei
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=65523232-58d4-a8c7-50ff-8f44f7ac23fc@intel.com \
--to=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=yosryahmed@google.com \
--cc=yuzhao@google.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