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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201217185243.3288048-1-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
 <20201217185243.3288048-9-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> <20201217205048.GL5487@ziepe.ca>
 <CA+CK2bA4F+SipkReJzFjCSC-8kZdK4yrwCQZM+TvCTrqV2CGHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201218141927.GM5487@ziepe.ca> <CA+CK2bDULopw649ndBybA-ST5EoRMHULwcfQcSQVKT9r8zAtwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210113195528.GD4605@ziepe.ca> <CA+CK2bDDUMOeCH8rQBL7fBdHCAUZBOykyXNL2N=hmxq7xi0giQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+CK2bDDUMOeCH8rQBL7fBdHCAUZBOykyXNL2N=hmxq7xi0giQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:10:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+CK2bC=o1-qW5+d-Lud9qN1937PC4Jxf_oyxwVrKby=mH5WyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/10] mm/gup: limit number of gup migration failures,
 honor failures
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
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>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:05 PM Pavel Tatashin
<pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Oh, that existing logic is wrong too :( Another bug.
> > >
> > > I do not think there is a bug.
> > >
> > > > You can't skip pages in the pages[] array under the assumption they
> > > > are contiguous. ie the i+=step is wrong.
> > >
> > > If pages[i] is part of a compound page, the other parts of this page
> > > must be sequential in this array for this compound page
> >
> > That is true only if the PMD points to the page. If the PTE points to
> > a tail page then there is no requirement that other PTEs are
> > contiguous with the compount page.
> >
> > At this point we have no idea if the GUP logic got this compound page
> > as a head page in a PMD or as a tail page from a PTE, so we can't
> > assume a contiguous run of addresses.
>
> I see, I will fix this bug in an upstream as a separate patch in my
> series, and keep the fix when my fixes are applied.
>
> >
> > Look at split_huge_pmd() - it doesn't break up the compound page it
> > just converts the PMD to a PTE array and scatters the tail pages to
> > the PTE.

Hi Jason,

I've been thinking about this some more. Again, I am not sure this is
a bug. I understand split_huge_pmd() may split the PMD size page into
PTEs and leave the compound page intact. However, in order for pages[]
to have non sequential addresses in compound page, those PTEs must
also be migrated after split_huge_pmd(), however when we migrate them
we will either migrate the whole compound page or do
split_huge_page_to_list() which will in turn do ClearPageCompound().
Please let me know if I am missing something.

Thank you,
Pasha

>
> Got it, unfortunately the fix will deoptimize the code by having to
> check every page if it is part of a previous compound page or not.
>
> >
> > I understand Matt is pushing on this idea more by having compound
> > pages in the page cache, but still mapping tail pages when required.
> >
> > > This is actually standard migration procedure, elsewhere in the kernel
> > > we migrate pages in exactly the same fashion: isolate and later
> > > migrate. The isolation works for LRU only pages.
> >
> > But do other places cause a userspace visible random failure when LRU
> > isolation fails?
>
> Makes sense, I will remove maximum retries for isolation, and retry
> indefinitely, the same as it is done during memory hot-remove. So, we
> will fail only when migration fails.
>
> >
> > I don't like it at all, what is the user supposed to do?
> >
> > Jason