Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] mm: ksm: do not block on page lock when searching
 stable tree
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
CC:     Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>, <hughd@google.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <1548287573-15084-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
 <aecc642c-d485-ed95-7935-19cda48800bc@nvidia.com>
 <CAHbLzkqTZK05g0191dKyTXGDcAuqMi9AGWPHbAEysQdgT7ayBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Message-ID: <968651e7-b734-2963-5def-71201729c5cf@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:07:57 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHbLzkqTZK05g0191dKyTXGDcAuqMi9AGWPHbAEysQdgT7ayBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US-large
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 1/28/19 12:06 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> Sorry for the late reply. It seems your email didn't reach my company
> mailbox. So, I replied you with my personal email.
> 
> Thanks for your suggestion. This does make the code looks neater.
> However, I'm not sure how Andrew thought about this patch. Once he is
> ok to this patch in overall, I will update v3 by following your
> suggestion.
> 
> Regards,
> Yang

Hi Yang, 

OK, great.

On the email, I took a quick peek at it looks like my email reached the
main lists, anyway, in case this helps with troubleshooting on your end:0

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aecc642c-d485-ed95-7935-19cda48800bc@nvidia.com/

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:24 PM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/23/19 3:52 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
>>> ksmd need search stable tree to look for the suitable KSM page, but the
>>> KSM page might be locked for a while due to i.e. KSM page rmap walk.
>>> Basically it is not a big deal since commit 2c653d0ee2ae
>>> ("ksm: introduce ksm_max_page_sharing per page deduplication limit"),
>>> since max_page_sharing limits the number of shared KSM pages.
>>>
>>> But it still sounds not worth waiting for the lock, the page can be skip,
>>> then try to merge it in the next scan to avoid potential stall if its
>>> content is still intact.
>>>
>>> Introduce async mode to get_ksm_page() to not block on page lock, like
>>> what try_to_merge_one_page() does.
>>>
>>> Return -EBUSY if trylock fails, since NULL means not find suitable KSM
>>> page, which is a valid case.
>>>
>>> With the default max_page_sharing setting (256), there is almost no
>>> observed change comparing lock vs trylock.
>>>
>>> However, with ksm02 of LTP, the reduced ksmd full scan time can be
>>> observed, which has set max_page_sharing to 786432.  With lock version,
>>> ksmd may tak 10s - 11s to run two full scans, with trylock version ksmd
>>> may take 8s - 11s to run two full scans.  And, the number of
>>> pages_sharing and pages_to_scan keep same.  Basically, this change has
>>> no harm.
>>>
>>> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
>>> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
>>> ---
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> This patch was with "mm: vmscan: skip KSM page in direct reclaim if priority
>>> is low" in the initial submission.  Then Hugh and Andrea pointed out commit
>>> 2c653d0ee2ae ("ksm: introduce ksm_max_page_sharing per page deduplication
>>> limit") is good enough for limiting the number of shared KSM page to prevent
>>> from softlock when walking ksm page rmap.  This commit does solve the problem.
>>> So, the series was dropped by Andrew from -mm tree.
>>>
>>> However, I thought the second patch (this one) still sounds useful.  So, I did
>>> some test and resubmit it.  The first version was reviewed by Krill Tkhai, so
>>> I keep his Reviewed-by tag since there is no change to the patch except the
>>> commit log.
>>>
>>> So, would you please reconsider this patch?
>>>
>>> v2: Updated the commit log to reflect some test result and latest discussion
>>>
>>>  mm/ksm.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/ksm.c b/mm/ksm.c
>>> index 6c48ad1..f66405c 100644
>>> --- a/mm/ksm.c
>>> +++ b/mm/ksm.c
>>> @@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ static void remove_node_from_stable_tree(struct stable_node *stable_node)
>>>  }
>>>
>>>  /*
>>> - * get_ksm_page: checks if the page indicated by the stable node
>>> + * __get_ksm_page: checks if the page indicated by the stable node
>>>   * is still its ksm page, despite having held no reference to it.
>>>   * In which case we can trust the content of the page, and it
>>>   * returns the gotten page; but if the page has now been zapped,
>>> @@ -686,7 +686,8 @@ static void remove_node_from_stable_tree(struct stable_node *stable_node)
>>>   * a page to put something that might look like our key in page->mapping.
>>>   * is on its way to being freed; but it is an anomaly to bear in mind.
>>>   */
>>> -static struct page *get_ksm_page(struct stable_node *stable_node, bool lock_it)
>>> +static struct page *__get_ksm_page(struct stable_node *stable_node,
>>> +                                bool lock_it, bool async)
>>>  {
>>>       struct page *page;
>>>       void *expected_mapping;
>>> @@ -729,7 +730,14 @@ static struct page *get_ksm_page(struct stable_node *stable_node, bool lock_it)
>>>       }
>>>
>>>       if (lock_it) {
>>> -             lock_page(page);
>>> +             if (async) {
>>> +                     if (!trylock_page(page)) {
>>> +                             put_page(page);
>>> +                             return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
>>> +                     }
>>> +             } else
>>> +                     lock_page(page);
>>> +
>>>               if (READ_ONCE(page->mapping) != expected_mapping) {
>>>                       unlock_page(page);
>>>                       put_page(page);
>>> @@ -752,6 +760,11 @@ static struct page *get_ksm_page(struct stable_node *stable_node, bool lock_it)
>>>       return NULL;
>>>  }
>>>
>>> +static struct page *get_ksm_page(struct stable_node *stable_node, bool lock_it)
>>> +{
>>> +     return __get_ksm_page(stable_node, lock_it, false);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  /*
>>>   * Removing rmap_item from stable or unstable tree.
>>>   * This function will clean the information from the stable/unstable tree.
>>> @@ -1673,7 +1686,11 @@ static struct page *stable_tree_search(struct page *page)
>>>                        * It would be more elegant to return stable_node
>>>                        * than kpage, but that involves more changes.
>>>                        */
>>> -                     tree_page = get_ksm_page(stable_node_dup, true);
>>> +                     tree_page = __get_ksm_page(stable_node_dup, true, true);
>>
>> Hi Yang,
>>
>> The bools are stacking up: now you've got two, and the above invocation is no longer
>> understandable on its own. At this point, we normally shift to flags and/or an
>> enum.
>>
>> Also, I see little value in adding a stub function here, so how about something more
>> like the following approximation (untested, and changes to callers are not shown):
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/ksm.c b/mm/ksm.c
>> index 6c48ad13b4c9..8390b7905b44 100644
>> --- a/mm/ksm.c
>> +++ b/mm/ksm.c
>> @@ -667,6 +667,12 @@ static void remove_node_from_stable_tree(struct stable_node *stable_node)
>>         free_stable_node(stable_node);
>>  }
>>
>> +typedef enum {
>> +       GET_KSM_PAGE_NORMAL,
>> +       GET_KSM_PAGE_LOCK_PAGE,
>> +       GET_KSM_PAGE_TRYLOCK_PAGE
>> +} get_ksm_page_t;
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * get_ksm_page: checks if the page indicated by the stable node
>>   * is still its ksm page, despite having held no reference to it.
>> @@ -686,7 +692,8 @@ static void remove_node_from_stable_tree(struct stable_node *stable_node)
>>   * a page to put something that might look like our key in page->mapping.
>>   * is on its way to being freed; but it is an anomaly to bear in mind.
>>   */
>> -static struct page *get_ksm_page(struct stable_node *stable_node, bool lock_it)
>> +static struct page *get_ksm_page(struct stable_node *stable_node,
>> +                                get_ksm_page_t flags)
>>  {
>>         struct page *page;
>>         void *expected_mapping;
>> @@ -728,8 +735,17 @@ static struct page *get_ksm_page(struct stable_node *stable_node, bool lock_it)
>>                 goto stale;
>>         }
>>
>> -       if (lock_it) {
>> +       if (flags == GET_KSM_PAGE_TRYLOCK_PAGE) {
>> +               if (!trylock_page(page)) {
>> +                       put_page(page);
>> +                       return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
>> +               }
>> +       } else if (flags == GET_KSM_PAGE_LOCK_PAGE) {
>>                 lock_page(page);
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       if (flags == GET_KSM_PAGE_LOCK_PAGE ||
>> +           flags == GET_KSM_PAGE_TRYLOCK_PAGE) {
>>                 if (READ_ONCE(page->mapping) != expected_mapping) {
>>                         unlock_page(page);
>>                         put_page(page);
>>
>>
>> thanks,
>> --
>> John Hubbard
>> NVIDIA
>>
>>> +
>>> +                     if (PTR_ERR(tree_page) == -EBUSY)
>>> +                             return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
>>> +
>>>                       if (unlikely(!tree_page))
>>>                               /*
>>>                                * The tree may have been rebalanced,
>>> @@ -2060,6 +2077,10 @@ static void cmp_and_merge_page(struct page *page, struct rmap_item *rmap_item)
>>>
>>>       /* We first start with searching the page inside the stable tree */
>>>       kpage = stable_tree_search(page);
>>> +
>>> +     if (PTR_ERR(kpage) == -EBUSY)
>>> +             return;
>>> +
>>>       if (kpage == page && rmap_item->head == stable_node) {
>>>               put_page(kpage);
>>>               return;
>>>
>>