linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	peterx@redat.com, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/migrate_device.c: Fix a misleading and out-dated comment
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 17:48:21 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ywk/pZoYoy4BDO0n@xz-m1.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d82c2b8a-32a1-b973-40fb-485240d497d3@redhat.com>

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 07:17:06PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 26.08.22 17:03, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:34:15AM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 11:49:05AM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> >>>> Commit ab09243aa95a ("mm/migrate.c: remove MIGRATE_PFN_LOCKED") changed
> >>>> the way trylock_page() in migrate_vma_collect_pmd() works without
> >>>> updating the comment. Reword the comment to be less misleading and a
> >>>> better reflection of what happens.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
> >>>> Reported-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> >>>> Fixes: ab09243aa95a ("mm/migrate.c: remove MIGRATE_PFN_LOCKED")
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  mm/migrate_device.c | 8 +++++---
> >>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/mm/migrate_device.c b/mm/migrate_device.c
> >>>> index 5052093d0262..0736f846de0b 100644
> >>>> --- a/mm/migrate_device.c
> >>>> +++ b/mm/migrate_device.c
> >>>> @@ -179,9 +179,11 @@ static int migrate_vma_collect_pmd(pmd_t *pmdp,
> >>>>  		get_page(page);
> >>>>
> >>>>  		/*
> >>>> -		 * Optimize for the common case where page is only mapped once
> >>>> -		 * in one process. If we can lock the page, then we can safely
> >>>> -		 * set up a special migration page table entry now.
> >>>> +		 * If we can't lock the page we can't migrate it. If we can it's
> >>>> +		 * safe to set up a migration entry now. In the common case
> >>>> +		 * where the page is mapped once in a single process setting up
> >>>> +		 * the migration entry now is an optimisation to avoid walking
> >>>> +		 * the rmap later with try_to_migrate().
> >>>>  		 */
> >>>
> >>> IMHO the last sentence can still be a bit confusing - here we 100% rely on
> >>> the trylock() to proceed or we'll stop migration right away. IMHO that
> >>> means this is not an optimization, since optimizations should always be
> >>> optional but not the case here.
> >>
> >> We have to lock the page here, we don't have to install the migration
> >> entries. Installing the migration entries here is optional and is the
> >> optimisation.
> > 
> > I see what you mean now.
> > 
> >>
> >>> Meanwhile it'll be great to also mention about why trylock is needed and no
> >>> further attempt to use lock_page().  The comment in prepare() previously
> >>> was great but unfortunately that code clip was removed.
> >>
> >> Will add.
> >>
> >>> In short, do you think something like this might be clearer?
> >>
> >> I think it's important to mention the optimisation, otherwise the
> >> temptation is to remove the installation of migration entries here and
> >> rely on try_to_migrate() to do it later. I would actually like to be
> >> able to do that because it simplifies the code in many ways but based on
> >> my testing the optimisation turns out to be very worth while.
> >>
> >>> 		/*
> >>> 		 * We rely on the trylock() to migrate the pte.  If this
> >>> 		 * fails, we'll fail the migration of this page.  IOW, the
> >>> 		 * migration is very much best-effort, just like we'll also
> >>> 		 * bail out if we found page pinned by other users after
> >>> 		 * page being locked.
> >>
> >> Honestly I think this describes what the code does rather than why and
> >> is likely to become outdated and confusing. IMHO it's quite clear from
> >> the code that the migration will fail here if we can't lock the page.
> > 
> > If you see that's what I was struggling to understand previously, so not
> > clear at least to me. :) Since normally a function like page migration
> > should (from the gut feeling) not rely on trylock only.
> 
> IIRC, ordinary page migration will also only trylock. See
> isolate_movable_page().

Fair enough.

I think it depends on what we want to do with the migration.  I think not
even all users of isolate_movable_page() only depend on trylock, and it can
retry with lock_page later.  E.g.:

- soft_offline_in_use_page
  - isolate_page
    - isolate_movable_page <----- trylock here
  - (if isolate_page fails...) migrate_pages
    - unmap_and_move       <----- lock_page here after 2 unsuccessful rounds

And I also agree migration may always fail (e.g. by spurious page refcounts
being taken), so feel free to ignore the "gut feeling" - that's indeed kind
of subjective.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu



  reply	other threads:[~2022-08-26 21:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-08-25  1:49 Alistair Popple
2022-08-25 23:51 ` Peter Xu
2022-08-26  0:34   ` Alistair Popple
2022-08-26 15:03     ` Peter Xu
2022-08-26 17:17       ` David Hildenbrand
2022-08-26 21:48         ` Peter Xu [this message]
2022-08-29  7:09           ` Alistair Popple
2022-08-29 15:30             ` Peter Xu

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=Ywk/pZoYoy4BDO0n@xz-m1.local \
    --to=peterx@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=peterx@redat.com \
    --cc=rcampbell@nvidia.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