Received: by 2002:a25:1506:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 6csp5325114ybv; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:32:42 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyeQmFq3gd9EnODCIp0kU/BACKIgN9ln3mMXqdqPMQlWb9HKl1tIKj9BhhMhRKK5RuV/Fa4 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:a11:: with SMTP id n17mr4066215oij.94.1581456761885; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:32:41 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1581456761; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=DTrJJ7agD2gDZgn+mHxZs6Q4Kpu5HqwGyMOeZhY8P6HoGkhlqeGrzMkZtV/xZxj6zW 0Lw1pC8vOhZlB6leh9No6XLACL27y6L3CVsIuY84PVFpzxL5/RcPrPSPHH+k6uKlwZ80 lyjOlXrguola7cF6/H69W96oohGZHFhMqiE23pxM2YiZqrSG5HqTyQ4GQx+mH3vPqs4a r+Tjk2XGlKhh1sDwQNRK5j11dq6Nq1vVGUOgdNWLQhyOfA1Qd74w3zoGqF6RgRAKEvI2 Qe2XomzEsqcOvWLUXxRRqOE+T+3xJ50b/y36cGN+my7rfkVNZvZmQ/1jovifsotR6JiW Ohbw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=IdXeqUNCDw6vsgwpKMP/mro201t4P8oOPu674oJy4F8=; b=mR9sSXvWH/jrGbzO7Lj/+Z2p41LZrlsZ2VDyLALBbSJKqQ5MYrTBFF5whBSmFQ0r1m IHPzWtgLrEVDCo4nT7Nf/IKXZxeNfrnx9NKmvm9PpOZyECi+/1RoYO8s1dZwrgLYKD2i /GN06jo/kmkTsDhzFQ40+Na1OXUsy1HxIS0ZsD57MY7bb8o8fHW6ZfF1fnkVCXwRiBPl RetMmjCfxpydvil8xZ1TtX+SdGa52Wg1+2vgpk97FR42idvr2yLswyT6iZ5VJRz6s2qK SRlGJaJbprvzJlnHrhOZ7jOhmXewY/awpz9px80zcJC/4dUXk7l2OVpvdZT+BgfRaRCr Wh8A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=lcAtd2aU; 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=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x6si2508328ota.322.2020.02.11.13.32.30; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:32:41 -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; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=lcAtd2aU; 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=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729351AbgBKSPR (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:15:17 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-f65.google.com ([209.85.208.65]:41623 "EHLO mail-ed1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729017AbgBKSPR (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:15:17 -0500 Received: by mail-ed1-f65.google.com with SMTP id c26so5792930eds.8 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 10:15:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IdXeqUNCDw6vsgwpKMP/mro201t4P8oOPu674oJy4F8=; b=lcAtd2aUQqohh2K0Qp0cG4w8CEdeevHMAAjggBICjP3g8TTLkE6xthXoS/Ta8ZeYDl DvwGeQJ1qx6WA7sRVYz3tJNRDrRPkKjdD+g5EoV5r9xF3XuQpugH2kko1tZSuLxwuj3Z urTKYEG00pKtZEOdMljxs4yXkN11J28toNguMinzhr9ZX2LyqLzJhXH/OeYwiHNhcAqy oGS5WnrQo9CWPSjxv3HkpKEpR8ww86hr95gQpRwB0EXoA701kNUJvNKPq6Xh8FCiOW+h YbHEwBG9Lj5H9F+nIPPFLe72M+3c96VbDlfz3d0Qj77TX8HximsjjXjPmPEuGRpjDJEF hcTw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IdXeqUNCDw6vsgwpKMP/mro201t4P8oOPu674oJy4F8=; b=fGjywpGXM5Va8FxFpTsw4JT+MuTq0xTmZhDfo61430QH6vprFRwFxoZR9yBlpC5dEP TBbZYOJVaBcz85KbOrPxVsU+zjFDayh33L7pe3ZW26E0GuosobgHL/h8/5+E4ecPSmMs JxvVsDYEcLmpkS+soEJ0YQxAVo7On+MqVbacbMzm0sZi6ELpeXdoIqDHnGZcKc1LWTJJ bevYFrLxNCrhuEBfdk9IBR1CCNCghsbkbVS+ikVM0VNLQrUhITkgDYZMMelE0rBrlxTt rvAbOhuXu0k8UOw5HESPcsnZtTYfjyvfw2zcNzKCYD/Gam0/vpZjO0Cz8BhAvQ9Y98bv JJyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUiojZHy3jiZzXI/IIyRbGfK9s4TL/yheszPiS5q00QUq+WZG/h kfjFIawp3GKoaqaGqbf77tjeQ51mGE2BSMHztdbk6oNu8co= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:c0f:: with SMTP id co15mr7213529edb.200.1581444914525; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 10:15:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200211001958.170261-1-minchan@kernel.org> <20200211011021.GP8731@bombadil.infradead.org> <20200211035004.GA242563@google.com> <20200211035412.GR8731@bombadil.infradead.org> <20200211042536.GB242563@google.com> <20200211122323.GS8731@bombadil.infradead.org> <20200211163404.GC242563@google.com> <20200211172803.GA7778@bombadil.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20200211172803.GA7778@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Yang Shi Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 10:14:58 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix long time stall from mm_populate To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Minchan Kim , Andrew Morton , linux-mm , Josef Bacik , Johannes Weiner , Jan Kara , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 9:28 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 08:34:04AM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 04:23:23AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 08:25:36PM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 07:54:12PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 07:50:04PM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 05:10:21PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 04:19:58PM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > > > > > filemap_fault > > > > > > > > find a page form page(PG_uptodate|PG_readahead|PG_writeback) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh ... That shouldn't be possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see shrink_page_list. Vmscan uses PG_reclaim to accelerate > > > > > > page reclaim when the writeback is done so the page will have both > > > > > > flags at the same time and the PG reclaim could be regarded as > > > > > > PG_readahead in fault conext. > > > > > > > > > > What part of fault context can make that mistake? The snippet I quoted > > > > > below is from page_cache_async_readahead() where it will clearly not > > > > > make that mistake. There's a lot of code here; please don't presume I > > > > > know all the areas you're talking about. > > > > > > > > Sorry about being not clear. I am saying filemap_fault -> > > > > do_async_mmap_readahead > > > > > > > > Let's assume the page is hit in page cache and vmf->flags is !FAULT_FLAG > > > > TRIED so it calls do_async_mmap_readahead. Since the page has PG_reclaim > > > > and PG_writeback by shrink_page_list, it goes to > > > > > > > > do_async_mmap_readahead > > > > if (PageReadahead(page)) > > > > fpin = maybe_unlock_mmap_for_io(); > > > > page_cache_async_readahead > > > > if (PageWriteback(page)) > > > > return; > > > > ClearPageReadahead(page); <- doesn't reach here until the writeback is clear > > > > > > > > So, mm_populate will repeat the loop until the writeback is done. > > > > It's my just theory but didn't comfirm it by the testing. > > > > If I miss something clear, let me know it. > > > > > > Ah! Surely the right way to fix this is ... > > > > I'm not sure it's right fix. Actually, I wanted to remove PageWriteback check > > in page_cache_async_readahead because I don't see corelation. Why couldn't we > > do readahead if the marker page is PG_readahead|PG_writeback design PoV? > > Only reason I can think of is it makes *a page* will be delayed for freeing > > since we removed PG_reclaim bit, which would be over-optimization for me. > > You're confused. Because we have a shortage of bits in the page flags, > we use the same bit for both PageReadahead and PageReclaim. That doesn't > mean that a page marked as PageReclaim should be treated as PageReadahead. > > > Other concern is isn't it's racy? IOW, page was !PG_writeback at the check below > > in your snippet but it was under PG_writeback in page_cache_async_readahead and > > then the IO was done before refault reaching the code again. It could be repeated > > *theoretically* even though it's very hard to happen in real practice. > > Thus, I think it would be better to remove PageWriteback check from > > page_cache_async_readahead if we really want to go the approach. > > PageReclaim is always cleared before PageWriteback. eg here: > > void end_page_writeback(struct page *page) > ... > if (PageReclaim(page)) { > ClearPageReclaim(page); > rotate_reclaimable_page(page); > } > > if (!test_clear_page_writeback(page)) > BUG(); > > so if PageWriteback is clear, PageReclaim must already be observable as clear. Not sure if the below race in vmscan matters or not. if (PageWriteback(page)) { [snip] /* Case 2 above */ } else if (writeback_throttling_sane(sc) || !PageReclaim(page) || !may_enter_fs) { /* * This is slightly racy - end_page_writeback() * might have just cleared PageReclaim, then * setting PageReclaim here end up interpreted * as PageReadahead - but that does not matter * enough to care. What we do want is for this * page to have PageReclaim set next time memcg * reclaim reaches the tests above, so it will * then wait_on_page_writeback() to avoid OOM; * and it's also appropriate in global reclaim. */ SetPageReclaim(page); stat->nr_writeback++; goto activate_locked; > >