Received: by 2002:a25:8b91:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j17csp203106ybl; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:30:12 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw8xjqbbnILlaKhi11JtoxP56YBV0it5vUE2wibKIYq1ptJGOoUpFJTwOaqd89lBleTQjPM X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:4c2:: with SMTP id s2mr10055271otd.144.1579750212188; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:30:12 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1579750212; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=DXxyng3h02wfeWlHMH77LeuyXN6++OUdyPZy60xfXsKg5HvCwXxqjMUV5EjHSfUriL e3LWEHuDG+m60L8uLVrq8B6jOZQKHYTtfNVhHg/sp4TNrn9mSE2I9KTYfaBouBLold7L JRIo6/iIHhXpQKrtS4qDa0A0xSM2V9XBcWTiMEDOwxU8MY50nDZpwc51BH4L5J3g7LA3 BQewHaHcVAW3BJykoTr42BPdrU+uT1vDZ73bG/T1Qj/kP8akAXn7ZYNZV7Gd3EyoEEwC WP8yJedydSDueTAytAAD8df80Dm39D3GbtwPdnw7wCw6xYakNYslufKZxMzJYhsxVG7l uhmA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:reply-to:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=haAdBIu9SikExuPGPt6HqDKDIzbYsyqNY2AiPE5aD+k=; b=aBbqWyE/hXZ9oaxmq4PJqCtan6SdTDmmstdzXvQHn6FUAk0svQukkwfsTGZGpa4Jc9 bt5AV/b+usZCMBv0MWgf2MkgzM8lzA2IrpfJf4n26SFyr/UWWOTb3i3FqpNeq+frcheW 1pPboaB57ITwB7IkyktwRzC6Rl+MVlqaqxqfS6OajX9Qv2N2Ha78hnX+yMRDWZTUZ+Q1 MaQ+jkb8PvK8p4RQ4PX2osAklnupt5z5YSg6jQg1vilbuw3AauXhv6BZocRj43wnb4NL l2B8SxoQc6kOVIfA9pV2Vx44ZUOUa+XrwTaQUhynZ+iwIn5Lzm1zyhRAZsrUz7Y12bxE IHYw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id t1si430444otq.322.2020.01.22.19.29.59; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:30:12 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726219AbgAWD3G (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 22 Jan 2020 22:29:06 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:58544 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725911AbgAWD3F (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jan 2020 22:29:05 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jan 2020 19:29:05 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,352,1574150400"; d="scan'208";a="400209530" Received: from richard.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.159.54]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2020 19:29:03 -0800 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:29:14 +0800 From: Wei Yang To: Michal Hocko Cc: Yang Shi , Wei Yang , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: move_pages: fix the return value if there are not-migrated pages Message-ID: <20200123032914.GB22196@richard> Reply-To: Wei Yang References: <1579325203-16405-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20200120130624.GD18451@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200120131744.GE18451@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200121014416.GC1567@richard> <20200121084040.GC29276@dhcp22.suse.cz> <27b993f4-cc50-d5a9-1cda-89dd022aea16@linux.alibaba.com> <20200122080651.GN29276@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200122080651.GN29276@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 09:06:51AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: >On Tue 21-01-20 11:01:30, Yang Shi wrote: >> >> >> On 1/21/20 12:40 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Tue 21-01-20 09:44:16, Wei Yang wrote: >> > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 02:17:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > > > On Mon 20-01-20 14:06:26, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > > > > On Sat 18-01-20 13:26:43, Yang Shi wrote: >> > > > > > The do_move_pages_to_node() might return > 0 value, the number of pages >> > > > > > that are not migrated, then the value will be returned to userspace >> > > > > > directly. But, move_pages() syscall would just return 0 or errno. So, >> > > > > > we need reset the return value to 0 for such case as what pre-v4.17 did. >> > > > > The patch is wrong. migrate_pages returns the number of pages it >> > > > > _hasn't_ migrated or -errno. Yeah that semantic sucks but... >> > > > > So err != 0 is always an error. Except err > 0 doesn't really provide >> > > > > any useful information to the userspace. I cannot really remember what >> > > > > was the actual behavior before my rework because there were some gotchas >> > > > > hidden there. >> > > > OK, so I've double checked. do_move_page_to_node_array would carry the >> > > > error code over to do_pages_move and it would store the status stored >> > > > in the pm array. It contains page_to_nid(page) so the resulting code >> > > > indeed behaves properly before my change and this is a regression. I >> > > Thanks, I see the change. >> > > >> > > > have a very vague recollection that this has been brought up already. >> > > > <...looks in notes...> >> > > > Found it! The report is >> > > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/0329efa0984b9b0252ef166abb4498c0795fab36.1535113317.git.jstancek@redhat.com >> > > > and my proposed workaround was http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180829145537.GZ10223@dhcp22.suse.cz >> > > Well, the above two links return 404. >> > You are right. They are not archived for some reason. Anyway, the patch >> > I was proposing back then is below: >> > >> > commit cfb88c266b645197135cde2905c2bfc82f6d82a9 >> > Author: Michal Hocko >> > Date: Wed Nov 14 12:19:09 2018 +0100 >> > >> > mm: fix do_pages_move error reporting >> > a49bd4d71637 ("mm, numa: rework do_pages_move") has changed the way how >> > we report error to layers above. As the changelog mentioned the semantic >> > was quite unclear previously because the return 0 could mean both >> > success and failure. >> > The above mentioned commit didn't get all the way down to fix this >> > completely because it doesn't report pages that we even haven't >> > attempted to migrate and therefore we cannot simply say that the >> > semantic is: >> > - err < 0 - errno >> > - err >= 0 number of non-migrated pages. >> > Fixes: a49bd4d71637 ("mm, numa: rework do_pages_move") >> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko >> >> Thanks, Michal. But, it looks this patch still could return > 0 value (the >> total number of non-migrated pages, including not even attempted pages) too, >> but the problem we are trying to fix is to make do_pages_move() return <= 0 >> value only since the man page of move_pages() doesn't allow return > 0 >> value. > >Yes this patch just lives with the changed semantic and tries to make it >sensible. So if some page cannot be migrated then we just stop and >return the number of non migrated pages at the tail of the given array. >This would make error handling slightly easier because you know that >count - ret pages of the array can be skipped if ret >= 0. > Got some different idea for this. Replied in the patch thread. >> And, by looking into the old code (v4.16), I spotted another problem. The >> migrate_pages() would store the migration failure error code into >> page_to_node->status. So, When do_move_page_to_node_array() returns > 0 >> value, the return value would be reset to 0 and the migration error codes >> for non-migrated pages would be stored into status to return to userspace. >> But, the rework removed this. >> >> I didn't dig into the intention of the rework, is it expected? > >I have tried to preserve the original semantic as possible. As explained >in the changelog there were quite some discrepancies even before. This >new one was not really intentional. We have effectively two options >here. Either somebody really depend on the former semantic and we have >to fix this or we can relax the semantic as the above patch attempts. > >I would be more inclined for the second option as nobody has complained >about the new semantic except for few ltp tests which do not represent >real workload. If you have a real usecase then speak up please. >-- >Michal Hocko >SUSE Labs -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me