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;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] mm/gup: migrate pinned pages out of movable zone
Date:   Fri, 11 Dec 2020 22:29:08 +0100
Message-Id: <10F682D5-0654-4C42-9989-F999D4434295@redhat.com>
References: <CA+CK2bC6u4wnHX53ZhfPtQBLTDbD3t4V9Zuhj=HwD3gEyL4Puw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        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>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+CK2bC6u4wnHX53ZhfPtQBLTDbD3t4V9Zuhj=HwD3gEyL4Puw@mail.gmail.com>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Precedence: bulk


> Am 11.12.2020 um 22:09 schrieb Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>:=

>=20
> =EF=BB=BFOn Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 3:46 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wr=
ote:
>>=20
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 03:40:57PM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 03:21:39PM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
>>>>> @@ -1593,7 +1592,7 @@ static long check_and_migrate_cma_pages(struct m=
m_struct *mm,
>>>>>                              }
>>>>>=20
>>>>>                              if (!isolate_lru_page(head)) {
>>>>> -                                     list_add_tail(&head->lru, &cma_p=
age_list);
>>>>> +                                     list_add_tail(&head->lru, &movab=
le_page_list);
>>>>>                                      mod_node_page_state(page_pgdat(he=
ad),
>>>>>                                                          NR_ISOLATED_A=
NON +
>>>>>                                                          page_is_file_=
lru(head),
>>>>> @@ -1605,7 +1604,7 @@ static long check_and_migrate_cma_pages(struct m=
m_struct *mm,
>>>>>              i +=3D step;
>>>>>      }
>>>>>=20
>>>>> -     if (!list_empty(&cma_page_list)) {
>>>>> +     if (!list_empty(&movable_page_list)) {
>>>>=20
>>>> You didn't answer my earlier question, is it OK that ZONE_MOVABLE
>>>> pages leak out here if ioslate_lru_page() fails but the
>>>> moval_page_list is empty?
>>>>=20
>>>> I think the answer is no, right?
>>> In my opinion it is OK. We are doing our best to not pin movable
>>> pages, but if isolate_lru_page() fails because pages are currently
>>> locked by someone else, we will end up long-term pinning them.
>>> See comment in this patch:
>>> +        * 1. Pinned pages: (long-term) pinning of movable pages is avoi=
ded
>>> +        *    when pages are pinned and faulted, but it is still possibl=
e that
>>> +        *    address space already has pages in ZONE_MOVABLE at the tim=
e when
>>> +        *    pages are pinned (i.e. user has touches that memory before=

>>> +        *    pinning). In such case we try to migrate them to a differe=
nt zone,
>>> +        *    but if migration fails the pages can still end-up pinned i=
n
>>> +        *    ZONE_MOVABLE. In such case, memory offlining might retry a=
 long
>>> +        *    time and will only succeed once user application unpins pa=
ges.
>>=20
>> It is not "retry a long time" it is "might never complete" because
>> userspace will hold the DMA pin indefinitely.
>>=20
>> Confused what the point of all this is then ??
>>=20
>> I thought to goal here is to make memory unplug reliable, if you leave
>> a hole like this then any hostile userspace can block it forever.
>=20
> You are right, I used a wording from the previous comment, and it
> should be made clear that pin may be forever. Without these patches it
> is guaranteed that hot-remove will fail if there are pinned pages as
> ZONE_MOVABLE is actually the first to be searched. Now, it will fail
> only due to exceptions listed in ZONE_MOVABLE comment:
>=20
> 1. pin + migration/isolation failure

Not sure what that really means. We have short-term pinnings (although we mi=
ght have a better term for =E2=80=9Epinning=E2=80=9C here) for example, when=
 a process dies (IIRC). There is a period where pages cannot get migrated an=
d offlining code has to retry (which might take a while). This still applies=
 after your change - are you referring to that?

> 2. memblock allocation due to limited amount of space for kernelcore
> 3. memory holes
> 4. hwpoison
> 5. Unmovable PG_offline pages (? need to study why this is a scenario).

Virtio-mem is the primary user in this context.

> Do you think we should unconditionally unpin pages, and return error
> when isolation/migration fails?

I=E2=80=98m not sure what you mean here. Who=E2=80=99s supposed to unpin whi=
ch pages?

>=20
> Pasha
>=20
>>=20
>> Jason
>=20