linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Cc: ziy@nvidia.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
	wangyugui@e16-tech.com,  hughd@google.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] mm: thp: check total_mapcount instead of page_mapcount
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 22:06:29 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2105202120220.6466@eggly.anvils> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210513212334.217424-1-shy828301@gmail.com>

On Thu, 13 May 2021, Yang Shi wrote:

> When debugging the bug reported by Wang Yugui [1], try_to_unmap() may
> return false positive for PTE-mapped THP since page_mapcount() is used
> to check if the THP is unmapped, but it just checks compound mapount and
> head page's mapcount.  If the THP is PTE-mapped and head page is not
> mapped, it may return false positive.
> 
> Use total_mapcount() instead of page_mapcount() for try_to_unmap() and
> do so for the VM_BUG_ON_PAGE in split_huge_page_to_list as well.
> 
> This changed the semantic of try_to_unmap(), but I don't see there is
> any usecase that expects try_to_unmap() just unmap one subpage of a huge
> page.  So using page_mapcount() seems like a bug.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210412180659.B9E3.409509F4@e16-tech.com/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>

I don't object to this patch, I've no reason to NAK it; but I'll
point out a few deficiencies which might make you want to revisit it.

> ---
> v2: Removed dead code and updated the comment of try_to_unmap() per Zi
>     Yan.
> 
>  mm/huge_memory.c | 11 +----------
>  mm/rmap.c        | 10 ++++++----
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index 63ed6b25deaa..3b08b9ba1578 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -2348,7 +2348,6 @@ static void unmap_page(struct page *page)
>  		ttu_flags |= TTU_SPLIT_FREEZE;
>  
>  	unmap_success = try_to_unmap(page, ttu_flags);
> -	VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!unmap_success, page);

The unused variable unmap_success has already been reported and
dealt with.  But I couldn't tell what you intended: why change
try_to_unmap()'s output, if you then ignore it?

>  }
>  
>  static void remap_page(struct page *page, unsigned int nr)
> @@ -2718,7 +2717,7 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list(struct page *page, struct list_head *list)
>  	}
>  
>  	unmap_page(head);
> -	VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(compound_mapcount(head), head);
> +	VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(total_mapcount(head), head);

And having forced try_to_unmap() to do the expensive-on-a-THP
total_mapcount() calculation, you now repeat it here.  Better
to stick with the previous VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!unmap_success).

Or better a VM_WARN_ONCE(), accompanied by dump_page()s as before,
to get some perhaps useful info out, which this patch has deleted.
Probably better inside unmap_page() than cluttering up here.

VM_WARN_ONCE() because nothing in this patch fixes whatever Wang
Yugui is suffering from; and (aside from the BUG()) it's harmless,
because there are other ways in which the page_ref_freeze() can fail,
and that is allowed for.  We would like to know when this problem
occurs: there is something wrong, but no reason to crash.

>  
>  	/* block interrupt reentry in xa_lock and spinlock */
>  	local_irq_disable();
> @@ -2758,14 +2757,6 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list(struct page *page, struct list_head *list)
>  		__split_huge_page(page, list, end);
>  		ret = 0;
>  	} else {
> -		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_VM) && mapcount) {
> -			pr_alert("total_mapcount: %u, page_count(): %u\n",
> -					mapcount, count);
> -			if (PageTail(page))
> -				dump_page(head, NULL);
> -			dump_page(page, "total_mapcount(head) > 0");
> -			BUG();
> -		}

This has always looked ugly (as if Kirill had hit an unsolved case),
so it is nice to remove it; but you're losing the dump_page() info,
and not really gaining anything more than a cosmetic cleanup.

>  		spin_unlock(&ds_queue->split_queue_lock);
>  fail:		if (mapping)
>  			xa_unlock(&mapping->i_pages);
> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> index 693a610e181d..f52825b1330d 100644
> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> @@ -1742,12 +1742,14 @@ static int page_not_mapped(struct page *page)
>  }
>  
>  /**
> - * try_to_unmap - try to remove all page table mappings to a page
> - * @page: the page to get unmapped
> + * try_to_unmap - try to remove all page table mappings to a page and the
> + *                compound page it belongs to
> + * @page: the page or the subpages of compound page to get unmapped
>   * @flags: action and flags
>   *
>   * Tries to remove all the page table entries which are mapping this
> - * page, used in the pageout path.  Caller must hold the page lock.
> + * page and the compound page it belongs to, used in the pageout path.
> + * Caller must hold the page lock.
>   *
>   * If unmap is successful, return true. Otherwise, false.
>   */
> @@ -1777,7 +1779,7 @@ bool try_to_unmap(struct page *page, enum ttu_flags flags)
>  	else
>  		rmap_walk(page, &rwc);
>  
> -	return !page_mapcount(page) ? true : false;
> +	return !total_mapcount(page) ? true : false;

That always made me wince: "return !total_mapcount(page);" surely.

Or slightly better, "return !page_mapped(page);", since at least that
one breaks out as soon as it sees a mapcount.  Though I guess I'm
being silly there, since that case should never occur, so both
total_mapcount() and page_mapped() scan through all pages.

Or better, change try_to_unmap() to void: most callers ignore its
return value anyway, and make their own decisions; the remaining
few could be changed to do the same.  Though again, I may be
being silly, since the expensive THP case is not the common case.

>  }
>  
>  /**
> -- 
> 2.26.2


  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-05-21  5:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-13 21:23 Yang Shi
2021-05-14 13:50 ` Zi Yan
2021-05-21  5:06 ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
2021-05-21 17:16   ` Yang Shi
2021-05-21 19:27     ` Yang Shi
2021-05-21 23:17       ` Hugh Dickins
2021-05-22  0:36         ` Yang Shi

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=alpine.LSU.2.11.2105202120220.6466@eggly.anvils \
    --to=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
    --cc=wangyugui@e16-tech.com \
    --cc=ziy@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