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: <f7bcda22-8ffe-67be-36bc-fcde58d8884a@nvidia.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 15:49:06 -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
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
CC:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        John Dias <joaodias@google.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
References: <20220510211743.95831-1-minchan@kernel.org>
 <857d21da-5de2-fa3e-b1ce-41cc1cfb0191@nvidia.com>
 <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>
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <Ynw6mauQuNhrOAHy@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2022 22:48:37.3512
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: adf4596c-c6a4-4a23-dac9-08da33a062f8
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: CO1NAM11FT063.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY5PR12MB4211
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,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 15:37, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> Yes. But one thing that is still unanswered, that I think you can
>> answer, is: even if the compiler *did* re-read the mt variable, what
>> problems could that cause? I claim "no problems", because there is
>> no combination of 0, _CMA, _ISOLATE, _CMA|ISOLATE that will cause
>> problems here.
> 
> What scenario I am concerning with __READ_ONCE so compiler
> inlining get_pageblock_migratetype two times are
> 
>          CPU 0                                                       CPU 1
>                                                                  alloc_contig_range
> is_pinnable_page                                                start_isolate_page_range
>                                                                    set_pageblock_migratetype(MIGRATE_ISOLATE)
>     if (get_pageeblock_migratetype(page) == MIGRATE_CMA)
>         so it's false
>                                                                  undo:
>                                                                    set_pageblock_migratetype(MIGRATE_CMA)
>       
>     if (get_pageeblock_migratetype(page) == MIGRATE_ISOLATE)
>         so it's false
> 
> In the end, CMA memory would be pinned by CPU 0 process
> so CMA allocation keep failed until the process release the
> refcount.
> 

OK, so the code checks the wrong item each time. But the code really
only needs to know "is either _CMA or _ISOLATE set?". And so you
can just sidestep the entire question by writing it like this:

int mt = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);

if (mt & (MIGRATE_ISOLATE | MIGRATE_CMA))
	return false;


...yes?

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA