Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm: do not increment pgfault stats when page fault handler retries

[Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>]

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 2:14 PM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 01:29:45PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 12:40 PM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 05:08:18PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > If the page fault handler requests a retry, we will count the fault
> > > > multiple times. This is a relatively harmless problem as the retry paths
> > > > are not often requested, and the only user-visible problem is that the
> > > > fault counter will be slightly higher than it should be.  Nevertheless,
> > > > userspace only took one fault, and should not see the fact that the
> > > > kernel had to retry the fault multiple times.
> > > > Move page fault accounting into mm_account_fault() and skip incomplete
> > > > faults which will be accounted upon completion.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: d065bd810b6d ("mm: retry page fault when blocking on disk transfer")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  mm/memory.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > > > index 01a23ad48a04..c3b709ceeed7 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > > > @@ -5080,24 +5080,30 @@ static vm_fault_t __handle_mm_fault(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > >   * updates.  However, note that the handling of PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS should
> > > >   * still be in per-arch page fault handlers at the entry of page fault.
> > > >   */
> > > > -static inline void mm_account_fault(struct pt_regs *regs,
> > > > +static inline void mm_account_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct pt_regs *regs,
> > > >                                   unsigned long address, unsigned int flags,
> > > >                                   vm_fault_t ret)
> > > >  {
> > > >       bool major;
> > > >
> > > >       /*
> > > > -      * We don't do accounting for some specific faults:
> > > > -      *
> > > > -      * - Unsuccessful faults (e.g. when the address wasn't valid).  That
> > > > -      *   includes arch_vma_access_permitted() failing before reaching here.
> > > > -      *   So this is not a "this many hardware page faults" counter.  We
> > > > -      *   should use the hw profiling for that.
> > > > -      *
> > > > -      * - Incomplete faults (VM_FAULT_RETRY).  They will only be counted
> > > > -      *   once they're completed.
> > > > +      * Do not account for incomplete faults (VM_FAULT_RETRY). They will be
> > > > +      * counted upon completion.
> > > >        */
> > > > -     if (ret & (VM_FAULT_ERROR | VM_FAULT_RETRY))
> > > > +     if (ret & VM_FAULT_RETRY)
> > > > +             return;
> > > > +
> > > > +     /* Register both successful and failed faults in PGFAULT counters. */
>
> [1]
>
> > > > +     count_vm_event(PGFAULT);
> > > > +     count_memcg_event_mm(mm, PGFAULT);
> > >
> > > Is there reason on why vm events accountings need to be explicitly
> > > different from perf events right below on handling ERROR?
> > >
> > > I get the point if this is to make sure ERROR accountings untouched for
> > > these two vm events after this patch. IOW probably the only concern right
> > > now is having RETRY counted much more than before (perhaps worse with vma
> > > locking applied).
> > >
> > > But since we're on this, I'm wondering whether we should also align the two
> > > events (vm, perf) so they represent in an aligned manner if we'll change it
> > > anyway.  Any future reader will be confused on why they account
> > > differently, IMHO, so if we need to differenciate we'd better add a comment
> > > on why.
> > >
> > > I'm wildly guessing the error faults are indeed very rare and probably not
> > > matter much at all.  I just think the code can be slightly cleaner if
> > > vm/perf accountings match and easier if we treat everything the same. E.g.,
> > > we can also drop the below "goto out"s too.  What do you think?
> >
> > I think the rationale might be that vm accounting should account for
> > *all* events, including failing page faults while for perf, the corner
> > cases which rarely happen would not have tangible effect.
>
> Note that it's not only for perf, but also task_struct.maj_flt|min_flt.
>
> If we check the reasoning of "why ERROR shouldn't be accounted for perf
> events", there're actually something valid in the comment:
>
>          * - Unsuccessful faults (e.g. when the address wasn't valid).  That
>          *   includes arch_vma_access_permitted() failing before reaching here.
>          *   So this is not a "this many hardware page faults" counter.  We
>          *   should use the hw profiling for that.
>
> IMHO it suggests that if someone wants to trap either ERROR or RETRY one
> can use the hardware counters instead.  The same reasoning just sounds
> applicable to vm events too, because vm events are not special in this case
> to me.
>
> > I don't have a strong position on this issue and kept it as is to
> > avoid changing the current accounting approach. If we are fine with
> > such consolidation which would miss failing faults in vm accounting, I
> > can make the change.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion either.  We used to change this path before
> for perf events and task events and no one complains with the change.  I'd
> just bet the same to vm events:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200707225021.200906-1-peterx@redhat.com/

Ok, if these rare failures don't change anything then let's
consolidate the code. It should simplify things a bit and will account
faults in a consistent way. I'll post v3 shortly incorporating your
and Matthew's feedbacks. Thanks for the input!

>
> Please feel free to keep it as-is if you still feel unsafe on changing
> ERROR handling.  If so, would you mind slightly modify [1] above explaining
> why we need ERROR to be accounted for vm accountings with the reasoning?
> Current comment only says "what it does" rather than why.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Peter Xu
>