Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 3 Dec 2020 15:36:07 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, mike.kravetz@oracle.com,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm/gup: migrate pinned pages out of movable zone
Message-ID: <20201203193607.GV5487@ziepe.ca>
References: <20201202052330.474592-7-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
 <20201202163507.GL5487@ziepe.ca>
 <CA+CK2bBT=U+xhbzXTDFwsL5wTvPHgNJ0DRpaeseiUq=w4EOe9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201203010809.GQ5487@ziepe.ca>
 <CA+CK2bBRgcCc5Nm0RcsEgVFpGBFC-_icA6UDRiqQxeRJE5U-Aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201203141729.GS5487@ziepe.ca>
 <CA+CK2bA=Ahd4E=ebdJ7uwxPyQ1AEy_hxA+Tx+yAi92JcZsQsfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201203165937.GU5487@ziepe.ca>
 <CA+CK2bBRqK6_ZOkTbz8qe4Gz6T5pwt-KjJQ0+NzYOC1qO1sPMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+CK2bAErUyg26UNKQJwaZ7wsv4+qv4Ws58Vdmv+QZfLDyrkeQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+CK2bAErUyg26UNKQJwaZ7wsv4+qv4Ws58Vdmv+QZfLDyrkeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 02:15:36PM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:

> I studied some more, and I think this is not a race:
> list_add_tail(&head->lru, &cma_page_list) is called only when
> isolate_lru_page(head) succeeds.
> isolate_lru_page(head) succeeds only when PageLRU(head) is true.
> However, in this function we also clear LRU flag before returning
> success.
> This means, that if we race with another thread, the other thread
> won't get to unprotected list_add_tail(&head->lru, &cma_page_list)
> until head is is back on LRU list.

Oh interesting, I totally didn't see how that LRU stuff is
working. So.. this creates a ridiculously expensive spin lock? Not
broken, but yikes :|

Jason