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, 23 Sep 2021 13:53:28 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/khugepaged: Detecting uffd-wp vma more efficiently
Message-ID: <YUy/GKdVvB16ePF/@t490s>
References: <20210922175156.130228-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <CAJHvVch3g_UY-akMdu0O9413iCb1H83DLhR1Am8WnfUyV=s1=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <YUueOUfoamxOvEyO@t490s>
 <24224366-293a-879-95db-f69abcb0cb70@google.com>
 <YUu/6lWX92WLUzpt@t490s>
 <472a3497-ba70-ac6b-5828-bc5c4c93e9ab@google.com>
 <YUvj9r3Y954pYPnf@xz-m1.local>
 <CAJHvVcg=oQBcuFjT_RO-_0VMtmyTzkzmUaUv0-zX42CnRWbBAg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJHvVcg=oQBcuFjT_RO-_0VMtmyTzkzmUaUv0-zX42CnRWbBAg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:47:42AM -0700, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> My thinking there was a THP collapse bug was really just based on
> speculation, not a real reproducer, so it's very possible my
> speculation was wrong. It will take some more thinking and reading to
> convince myself one way or the other. :) Thanks to you and Hugh for
> all the details.
> 
> I'd prefer not to add this fix "just in case", if it isn't a real
> problem, as it seems like it may confuse future readers of the code.

It's not "just in case" to me - IMHO it's theoretically causing more false
positives as I used to mention, at least that's my understanding so far. So if
the theory is correct it'll 100% happen when khugepaged merged some
minor-registered regions.

Uffd-wp could have many false positives like this if we don't support swap - at
last we decided to fully support swap then we removed all the false positives
regarding swapping.  I think it's similar here, but khugepaged should trigger
much less frequently on the false positives upon uffd-minor, than swapping upon
uffd-wp.

But yes, there's definitely no rush on thinking or anything - it'll never hurt
to think more. And more importantly, verify it with some test program would be
great; after all theoretically it'll just work like a charm to me.

> 
> I'll send out a patch for it if / when I manage to build a real
> reproducer. Or, in the meantime, some of my Google colleagues are
> testing this code via their live migration implementation, so if there
> is a bug here there's a good chance we'll find it that way too.

Sounds like a good plan.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu