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 v4 08/10] mm/gup: limit number of gup migration failures, honor failures
Date:   Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:04:48 +0100
Message-Id: <1671AFC0-3D06-4C4E-934D-CB6DC0AFE4A1@redhat.com>
References: <CA+CK2bCn++2Sk4-Eunibj6f+JoOL77uJQXGU2+dScHQ3RgC7_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        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>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        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>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <CA+CK2bCn++2Sk4-Eunibj6f+JoOL77uJQXGU2+dScHQ3RgC7_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Precedence: bulk


> Am 18.12.2020 um 13:43 schrieb Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>:=

>=20
> =EF=BB=BFOn Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 5:46 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wr=
ote:
>>=20
>> On Thu 17-12-20 13:52:41, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
>> [...]
>>> +#define PINNABLE_MIGRATE_MAX 10
>>> +#define PINNABLE_ISOLATE_MAX 100
>>=20
>> Why would we need to limit the isolation retries. Those should always be
>> temporary failure unless I am missing something.
>=20
> Actually, during development, I was retrying isolate errors
> infinitely, but during testing found a hung where when FOLL_TOUCH
> without FOLL_WRITE is passed (fault in kernel without write flag), the
> zero page is faulted. The isolation of the zero page was failing every
> time, therefore the process was hanging.
>=20
> Since then, I fixed this problem by adding FOLL_WRITE unconditionally
> to FOLL_LONGTERM, but I was worried about other possible bugs that
> would cause hangs, so decided to limit isolation errors. If you think
> it its not necessary, I can unlimit isolate retires.
>=20
>> I am not sure about the
>> PINNABLE_MIGRATE_MAX either. Why do we want to limit that? migrate_pages
>> already implements its retry logic why do you want to count retries on
>> top of that? I do agree that the existing logic is suboptimal because
>=20
> True, but again, just recently, I worked on a race bug where pages can
> end up in per-cpu list after lru_add_drain_all() but before isolation,
> so I think retry is necessary.
>=20
>> the migration failure might be ephemeral or permanent but that should be
>> IMHO addressed at migrate_pages (resp. unmap_and_move) and simply report
>> failures that are permanent - e.g. any potential pre-existing long term
>> pin - if that is possible at all. If not what would cause permanent
>> migration failure? OOM?
>=20
> Yes, OOM is the main cause for migration failures. And also a few
> cases described in movable zone comment, where it is possible during
> boot some pages can be allocated by memblock in movable zone due to
> lack of memory resources (even if those resources were added later),
> hardware page poisoning is another rare example.
>=20

How is concurrent migration handled? Like memory offlining, compaction, allo=
c_contig_range() while trying to pin?


>> --
>> Michal Hocko
>> SUSE Labs
>=20