Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 12.22.5.238 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=12.22.5.238; helo=mail.nvidia.com;
Message-ID: <0d90390c-3624-4f93-f8bd-fb29e92237d3@nvidia.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 17:12:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm: fix is_pinnable_page against on cma page
Content-Language: en-US
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To:     <paulmck@kernel.org>
CC:     Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        John Dias <joaodias@google.com>,
        "David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>
References: <Ynr10y6pkH6WwbQo@google.com>
 <bb6e76f1-2cbc-893d-c8ab-3ecd3fcae2a5@nvidia.com>
 <Ynr+wTCQpyh8+vOD@google.com>
 <2ffa7670-04ea-bb28-28f8-93a9b9eea7e8@nvidia.com>
 <YnwupNzDNv7IbjRQ@google.com>
 <54b5d177-f2f4-cef2-3a68-cd3b0b276f86@nvidia.com>
 <Ynw6mauQuNhrOAHy@google.com>
 <f7bcda22-8ffe-67be-36bc-fcde58d8884a@nvidia.com>
 <YnxCCPZUfgQNXSg6@google.com>
 <8f083802-7ab0-15ec-b37d-bc9471eea0b1@nvidia.com>
 <20220511234534.GG1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <ea64b36c-ecc1-74db-dd2e-909e7e507ef8@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <ea64b36c-ecc1-74db-dd2e-909e7e507ef8@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 May 2022 00:12:03.9183
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 112bcf44-221e-4f2f-be13-08da33ac0b20
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[12.22.5.238];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1NAM11FT047.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR12MB1299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,
        SPF_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
        version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 5/11/22 16:57, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 5/11/22 16:45, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>
>>> Well no, because the "&" operation is a single operation on the CPU, and
>>> isn't going to get split up like that.
>>
>> Chiming in a bit late...
> 
> Much appreciated!
> 
>>
>> The usual way that this sort of thing causes trouble is if there is a
>> single store instruction that changes the value from MIGRATE_ISOLATE
>> to MIGRATE_CMA, and if the compiler decides to fetch twice, AND twice,
> 
> Doing an AND twice for "x & constant" this definitely blows my mind. Is
> nothing sacred? :)
> 
>> and then combine the results.  This could give a zero outcome where the
>> underlying variable never had the value zero.
>>
>> Is this sort of thing low probability?
>>
>> Definitely.
>>
>> Isn't this sort of thing prohibited?
>>
>> Definitely not.
>>
>> So what you have will likely work for at least a while longer, but it
>> is not guaranteed and it forces you to think a lot harder about what
>> the current implementations of the compiler can and cannot do to you.
>>
>> The following LWN article goes through some of the possible optimizations
>> (vandalisms?) in this area: https://lwn.net/Articles/793253/
>>
> 
> hmm, I don't think we hit any of those  cases, do we? Because here, the 
> "write" side is via a non-inline function that I just don't believe the 
> compiler is allowed to call twice. Or is it?
> 
> Minchan's earlier summary:
> 
> CPU 0                         CPU1
> 
> 
>                                set_pageblock_migratetype(MIGRATE_ISOLATE)
> 
> if (get_pageblock_migrate(page) & MIGRATE_CMA)
> 
>                                set_pageblock_migratetype(MIGRATE_CMA)
> 
> if (get_pageblock_migrate(page) & MIGRATE_ISOLATE)
> 
> ...where set_pageblock_migratetype() is not inline.
> 
> thanks,

Let me try to say this more clearly: I don't think that the following
__READ_ONCE() statement can actually help anything, given that
get_pageblock_migratetype() is non-inlined:

+	int __mt = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
+	int mt = __READ_ONCE(__mt);
+
+	if (mt & (MIGRATE_CMA | MIGRATE_ISOLATE))
+		return false;


Am I missing anything here?


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA