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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF1FC433F5 for ; Thu, 5 May 2022 17:28:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id DB10D6B0073; Thu, 5 May 2022 13:28:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id D629A6B0074; Thu, 5 May 2022 13:28:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id BDA616B0075; Thu, 5 May 2022 13:28:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0B6B6B0073 for ; Thu, 5 May 2022 13:28:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 434132A63E for ; Thu, 5 May 2022 17:28:01 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79432372362.22.22DDB9E Received: from mail-pj1-f47.google.com (mail-pj1-f47.google.com [209.85.216.47]) by imf07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8DC40092 for ; Thu, 5 May 2022 17:27:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-f47.google.com with SMTP id qe3-20020a17090b4f8300b001dc24e4da73so6020383pjb.1 for ; Thu, 05 May 2022 10:28:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=xg/pm+e2Qt3mW+QrtQns7UgBoy/9i7r00873gorg2Lw=; b=YMcAIbYYOrww25piOSwixN5vCkxSnL8MnbZmG99Fhk8Q8HuBkPu1RILxtkjPNXCwKb dvdqbUVWQGPcDp9qK1CgDCXfWngmIyER8PAmsmlAhAP25rUHZwW8lhMPJZd1f3lLDzvp 4W5eUoIgUAaJCVvS33M8J4MwoVeXg4XbZjst68r4DWZcimbG61pUuypzbz0ymVT15Xxb E2NVpVTTdL+Fo4rPVusgcglmsReFPM9RXqhp+CrtAvGWiagEO9fRHVtKF534l9tL+Ewn BgpXLahsZlo0ELUC21cMdn6EHVG7aF+bjQAmRj4vpaNs+qQ8qwiLMuiF+qw+QW92urZU 9cMA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=xg/pm+e2Qt3mW+QrtQns7UgBoy/9i7r00873gorg2Lw=; b=wuZ+6v+gFzI0CDbpkEJrAl1jVCLYfs0CLEom4rlwJANt6gNQ8KWaENGkwApvO2CTqZ G6NRhlTCZM7L6xROqx7/B6J8PWAI6DYXAoIs8a1KOuq3ygWQ595qVGrZxbZoN+oqeZbC cRzYkKF4Zb841CreJq14mEibisyhB16TysMSjtNdTRSXyPNYc1Cciaa/vrZDLwcB7x2F UBnSL9XHTezcmLeEaTqfYnpTHdTBr4FtEDFxUlmeZ/gFefCPRwP8r3oVEPsGhjeGudR9 U1i6ap9PEnZLYI+pHWTe5Y5MgXqR69+ihFznAwZKrioPNEyybb64OwujWaSeuWq/5ebP LB3A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Rg5N/CMkNrsfJ1WKfKc3mCe0kieqkBKU/2n+SFdr/aT2cNoDE LU8BtHVCXaRP+v03xODwNo8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzPmexJWSCp3MSWPnY62KxjIUNCMkeN7mpSQusr4t0Lyx/bohCN2cfp04dRQHYHi6kLqODjtw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3b81:b0:1dc:32ac:a66b with SMTP id pc1-20020a17090b3b8100b001dc32aca66bmr7398553pjb.49.1651771679500; Thu, 05 May 2022 10:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:211:201:1c0c:8050:e4d3:12f5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t2-20020a170902b20200b0015e8d4eb1c0sm1822492plr.10.2022.05.05.10.27.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 05 May 2022 10:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 10:27:57 -0700 From: Minchan Kim To: Mike Kravetz Cc: David Hildenbrand , Andrew Morton , linux-mm , LKML , John Hubbard , John Dias Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix is_pinnable_page against on cma page Message-ID: References: <20220502173558.2510641-1-minchan@kernel.org> <29d0c1c3-a44e-4573-7e7e-32be07544dbe@redhat.com> <08e9855c-395d-f40c-de3d-1ec8b644bfe8@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Stat-Signature: mfhypzehx4tx5u8bcgnhkhts8jazp1is X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 2C8DC40092 X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=YMcAIbYY; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=kernel.org (policy=none); spf=pass (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of minchan.kim@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=minchan.kim@gmail.com X-HE-Tag: 1651771676-472969 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 Thu, May 05, 2022 at 10:00:07AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote: > On 5/4/22 23:48, Minchan Kim wrote: > > On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 03:48:54PM -0700, Minchan Kim wrote: > >> On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 06:02:33PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>> On 03.05.22 17:26, Minchan Kim wrote: > >>>> On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 03:15:24AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> However, I assume we have the same issue right now already with > >>>>>>> ZONE_MOVABLE and MIGRATE_CMA when trying to pin a page residing on these > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ZONE_MOVALBE is also changed dynamically? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Sorry, with "same issue" I meant failing to pin if having to migrate and > >>>>> the page is temporarily unmovable. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> there are temporarily unmovable and we fail to migrate. But it would now > >>>>>>> apply even without ZONE_MOVABLE or MIGRATE_CMA. Hm... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Didn't parse your last mention. > >>>>> > >>>>> On a system that neither uses ZONE_MOVABLE nor MIGRATE_CMA we might have > >>>>> to migrate now when pinning. > >>>> > >>>> I don't understand your point. My problem is pin_user_pages with > >>>> FOLL_LONGTERM. It shouldn't pin a page from ZONE_MOVABLE and cma area > >>>> without migrating page out of movable zone or CMA area. > >>>> That's why try_grab_folio checks whether target page stays in those > >>>> movable areas. However, to check CMA area, is_migrate_cma_page is > >>>> racy so the FOLL_LONGTERM flag semantic is broken right now. > >>>> > >>>> Do you see any problem of the fix? > >>> > >>> My point is that you might decide to migrate a page because you stumble > >>> over MIGRATE_ISOLATE, although there is no need to reject long-term > >>> pinning and to trigger page migration. > >>> > >>> Assume a system without ZONE_MOVABLE and without MIGRATE_CMA. Assume > >>> someone reserves gigantic pages (alloc_contig_range()) and you have > >>> concurrent long-term pinning on a page that is no MIGRATE_ISOLATE. > >>> > >>> GUP would see MIGRATE_ISOLATE and would reject pinning. The page has to > >>> be migrated, which can fail if the page is temporarily unmovable. > >> > >> A dump question since I'm not familiar with hugetlb. > >> > >> Is above reasonable scenario? > >> > >> The gigantic page is about to be created using alloc_contig_range so > >> they has MIGRATE_ISOLATE as temporal state. It means no one uses the > >> page yet so I guess the page is not mapped at userspace but other is > >> trying to access the page using pin_user_pages? > >> > > > > Too dump question. Never mind. > > Posted v2 - https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220505064429.2818496-1-minchan@kernel.org/T/#u > > > > Well your question mentioned hugetlb so my mail filters caught it :) > > Your question caused me to think of the following. No need for any immediate > change: I think. Just wanted to share. > > Suppose someone has reserved CMA for gigantic hugetlb allocations. And, > suppose FOLL_LONGTERM is attempted on such a page (it would be in use). The > desired action would be to migrate the page out of CMA. Correct? > > Gigantic pages can only be migrated IF there is another (already allocated) > gigantic page available. The routine to try and allocate a page 'on the fly' > for migration will fail if passed a gigantic size. There 'might' be a free > pre-allocated gigantic page. However, if the user set up CMA reserves for > gigantic page allocations it is likely the free gigantic page is also in CMA. > Therefore, it can not be used for this migration. So, unless my reasoning > is wrong, FOLL_LONGTERM would almost always fail for gigantic pages in CMA. FOLL_LONGTERM on CMA-backed gigantic page would already fail, Thanks for sharing! Anyway, David's concern was non-CMA-backed gigantic page. The alloc_contig_range with MIGRATE_ISOLATE runs with concurrent FOLL_LONGTERM pinning, which could trigger page migration we didn't have before so it might increase FOLL_LONGTERM GUP failure rate.