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=-7.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 3D822C433E1 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 18:27:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E601820759 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 18:27:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Uzi/BmCK" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E601820759 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 6765F6B00A0; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 14:27:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 64CCA6B00A1; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 14:27:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 563846B00A2; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 14:27:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0165.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.165]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41EEC6B00A0 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 14:27:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C12738248047 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 18:27:11 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77048399862.22.way90_1104e5126f0d Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7089A1803AA72 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 18:27:11 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: way90_1104e5126f0d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 11102 Received: from mail-io1-f68.google.com (mail-io1-f68.google.com [209.85.166.68]) by imf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 18:27:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f68.google.com with SMTP id p205so11385918iod.8 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:27:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=E6x+glSlxiOGUjtI3jr6P1NnovfkvMrIggPzquz62cw=; b=Uzi/BmCKS1vdJXccY0TqAH/3oWOn8bQbOKU7Vgi8Y+xZWuRObC1dWx4Lyynr42k8zc jVcMADTtIIS64F0+kWtTq2wUFTcDjivKaYRKr6SCZd8OOtbbfZfkyq4SJawE14JSrQiU mCV7NajiUcqJXqRiuh6beFVd0gj5apNgbJxNx9hLTflVsiFSiwR/zCGLS4XcpMzux0ZJ +uJ3Nccueydk3NgAqAt4t3slRh+U4uWQy6SFnmOVhb3P4kvq9H6c9MmW7C1/s3e9MP+P e3pUt6O2R/S8nZyebwOb4LDrMrTD1BC1AgWO41lfKgmp2SExcqcpncFTP0Afy4ug52j3 x6Uw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=E6x+glSlxiOGUjtI3jr6P1NnovfkvMrIggPzquz62cw=; b=aVIZxrbUPgHyzAidKqeyLhR3fcpBUzFjMLMcLfLTmSWetZ9Z9PAGsKUY5xx0XuuZoc INermuAs9pJ0dUw2Hwe0nEupn4pOAfvIGfvDd6ufT8VvXxKg8p/+TRahLn20VoGXlUat hqMVEub8I9VssXWKkV5ry6s30K5WBHbf391ZhqNNEeR8IMPwEUmjSzuoO6jb/NL/i9DA eLFyXJoGk0gXvWrmufoHCx7rMNdRGfToTQEx8wuQHHYeDKPDHi4kWWqMHXvN5eYHychH arJOT74JAiC9/6kwIDlvzm8SzZKysxgkaWOnM9zwQsd1jEkweFdvraUuOVujKGf9omUL EQow== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533PXisgAtfOb4AtYGJd16IBauEZJNaJNSMUDO37PZDRIyHHYzej XaXRZUfcwfZdA3Kl14D6IgpSmwQqN8NUXii8sas= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy6WcCzqVx850TXoaHGVgZtBKBL/mwB++F+IFatXPbZjyvdJ5tnfCLS5iZ0HsXdj6XRoAdsEP08cKLteWLXSBo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:cc7:: with SMTP id e7mr11986861jak.87.1595010430150; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:27:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1594429136-20002-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <1594429136-20002-14-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <072b39ac-b95a-94f1-67a2-3293d4550ff8@linux.alibaba.com> In-Reply-To: <072b39ac-b95a-94f1-67a2-3293d4550ff8@linux.alibaba.com> From: Alexander Duyck Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:26:59 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 13/22] mm/lru: introduce TestClearPageLRU To: Alex Shi Cc: Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Hugh Dickins , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Daniel Jordan , Yang Shi , Matthew Wilcox , Johannes Weiner , kbuild test robot , linux-mm , LKML , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt , Joonsoo Kim , Wei Yang , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7089A1803AA72 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:46 AM Alex Shi wrot= e: > > > > =E5=9C=A8 2020/7/17 =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=885:12, Alexander Duyck =E5=86=99=E9= =81=93: > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 5:59 PM Alex Shi w= rote: > >> > >> Combine PageLRU check and ClearPageLRU into a function by new > >> introduced func TestClearPageLRU. This function will be used as page > >> isolation precondition to prevent other isolations some where else. > >> Then there are may non PageLRU page on lru list, need to remove BUG > >> checking accordingly. > >> > >> Hugh Dickins pointed that __page_cache_release and release_pages > >> has no need to do atomic clear bit since no user on the page at that > >> moment. and no need get_page() before lru bit clear in isolate_lru_pag= e, > >> since it '(1) Must be called with an elevated refcount on the page'. > >> > >> As Andrew Morton mentioned this change would dirty cacheline for page > >> isn't on LRU. But the lost would be acceptable with Rong Chen > >> report: > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/3/4/173 > >> > > ... > > >> diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c > >> index f645965fde0e..5092fe9c8c47 100644 > >> --- a/mm/swap.c > >> +++ b/mm/swap.c > >> @@ -83,10 +83,9 @@ static void __page_cache_release(struct page *page) > >> struct lruvec *lruvec; > >> unsigned long flags; > >> > >> + __ClearPageLRU(page); > >> spin_lock_irqsave(&pgdat->lru_lock, flags); > >> lruvec =3D mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat); > >> - VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLRU(page), page); > >> - __ClearPageLRU(page); > >> del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_off_lru(page= )); > >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pgdat->lru_lock, flags); > >> } > > > > So this piece doesn't make much sense to me. Why not use > > TestClearPageLRU(page) here? Just a few lines above you are testing > > for PageLRU(page) and it seems like if you are going to go for an > > atomic test/clear and then remove the page from the LRU list you > > should be using it here as well otherwise it seems like you could run > > into a potential collision since you are testing here without clearing > > the bit. > > > > Hi Alex, > > Thanks a lot for comments! > > In this func's call path __page_cache_release, the page is unlikely be > ClearPageLRU, since this page isn't used by anyone, and going to be freed= . > just __ClearPageLRU would be safe, and could save a non lru page flags di= sturb. So if I understand what you are saying correctly you are indicating that this page should likely not have the LRU flag set and that we just transitioned it from 1 -> 0 so there should be nobody else accessing it correct? It might be useful to document this somewhere. Essentially what we are doing then is breaking this up into the following cases. 1. Setting the LRU bit requires holding the LRU lock 2. Clearing the LRU bit requires either: a. Use of atomic operations if page count is 1 or more b. Non-atomic operations can be used if we cleared last reference c= ount Is my understanding on this correct? So we have essentially two scenarios, one for the get_page_unless_zero case, and another with the put_page_testzero. > >> @@ -878,9 +877,8 @@ void release_pages(struct page **pages, int nr) > >> spin_lock_irqsave(&locked_pgdat->lru_l= ock, flags); > >> } > >> > >> - lruvec =3D mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, locked= _pgdat); > >> - VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLRU(page), page); > >> __ClearPageLRU(page); > >> + lruvec =3D mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, locked= _pgdat); > >> del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_off_= lru(page)); > >> } > >> > > > > Same here. You are just moving the flag clearing, but you didn't > > combine it with the test. It seems like if you are expecting this to > > be treated as an atomic operation. It should be a relatively low cost > > to do since you already should own the cacheline as a result of > > calling put_page_testzero so I am not sure why you are not combining > > the two. > > before the ClearPageLRU, there is a put_page_testzero(), that means no on= e using > this page, and isolate_lru_page can not run on this page the in func chec= king. > VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!page_count(page), page); > So it would be safe here. Okay, so this is another 2b case as defined above then. > > > >> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > >> index c1c4259b4de5..18986fefd49b 100644 > >> --- a/mm/vmscan.c > >> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > >> @@ -1548,16 +1548,16 @@ int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, isol= ate_mode_t mode) > >> { > >> int ret =3D -EINVAL; > >> > >> - /* Only take pages on the LRU. */ > >> - if (!PageLRU(page)) > >> - return ret; > >> - > >> /* Compaction should not handle unevictable pages but CMA can = do so */ > >> if (PageUnevictable(page) && !(mode & ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE)) > >> return ret; > >> > >> ret =3D -EBUSY; > >> > >> + /* Only take pages on the LRU. */ > >> + if (!PageLRU(page)) > >> + return ret; > >> + > >> /* > >> * To minimise LRU disruption, the caller can indicate that it= only > >> * wants to isolate pages it will be able to operate on withou= t > >> @@ -1671,8 +1671,6 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned = long nr_to_scan, > >> page =3D lru_to_page(src); > >> prefetchw_prev_lru_page(page, src, flags); > >> > >> - VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLRU(page), page); > >> - > >> nr_pages =3D compound_nr(page); > >> total_scan +=3D nr_pages; > >> > > > > So effectively the changes here are making it so that a !PageLRU page > > will cycle to the start of the LRU list. Now if I understand correctly > > we are guaranteed that if the flag is not set it cannot be set while > > we are holding the lru_lock, however it can be cleared while we are > > holding the lock, correct? Thus that is why isolate_lru_pages has to > > call TestClearPageLRU after the earlier check in __isolate_lru_page. > > Right. > > > > > It might make it more readable to pull in the later patch that > > modifies isolate_lru_pages that has it using TestClearPageLRU. > As to this change, It has to do in this patch, since any TestClearPageLRU= may > cause lru bit miss in the lru list, so the precondication check has to > removed here. So I think some of my cognitive dissonance is from the fact that you really are doing two different things here. You aren't really implementing the full TestClearPageLRU until patch 15. So this patch is doing part of 2a and 2b, and then patch 15 is following up and completing the 2a cases. I still think it might make more sense to pull out the pieces related to 2b and move them into a patch before this with documentation explaining that there should be no competition for the LRU flag because the page has transitioned to a reference count of zero. Then take the remaining bits and combine them with patch 15 since the description for the two is pretty similar.