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:   Fri, 4 Dec 2020 13:06:31 -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: <20201204170631.GE5487@ziepe.ca>
References: <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>
 <20201203193607.GV5487@ziepe.ca>
 <CA+CK2bA18wXtETPpz4eeX02oagg1fyW=yNuN4UZVpBW0V4A1CQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+CK2bA18wXtETPpz4eeX02oagg1fyW=yNuN4UZVpBW0V4A1CQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:24:56AM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:36 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
> >
> > 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 :|
> 
> Not really a spin lock, the second thread won't be able to isolate
> this page, and will skip migration of this page.

It looks like the intent is that it will call gup again, then goto
check_again, and once again try to isolate the LRU. ie it loops.

If it gets to a point where all the CMA pages fail to isolate then it
simply exits with success as the cma_page_list will be empty.

Is this a bug? It seems like a bug, the invariant here is to not
return with a CMA page, so why do we have a path that does return with
a CMA page?

Jason