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;
Date:   Mon, 20 Jun 2022 17:05:10 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
To:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        corbet@lwn.net, mike.kravetz@oracle.com, paulmck@kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, duanxiongchun@bytedance.com, smuchun@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] mm: memory_hotplug: make hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap
 compatible with memmap_on_memory
Message-ID: <YrA4RpM2SMn5RNnq@FVFYT0MHHV2J.usts.net>
References: <20220619133851.68184-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com>
 <20220619133851.68184-3-songmuchun@bytedance.com>
 <YrAgUtV6wD6CIrad@FVFYT0MHHV2J.usts.net>
 <226243a9-b4f5-182e-1a5b-7b8d5c28f3b3@redhat.com>
 <YrAv18GnMOcQaAxz@FVFYT0MHHV2J.usts.net>
 <YrAzeHbYt1mAs9ue@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YrAzeHbYt1mAs9ue@localhost.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:44:40AM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 04:29:11PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > > Although it works, I think PageVmemmapSelfHosted() check for the 1st pfn's
> > > > vmemmap page is not always reliable.  Since we reused PG_owner_priv_1
> > > > as PG_vmemmap_self_hosted, the test is noly reliable for vmemmap page's
> > > > vmemmap page.  Other non-vmemmap page can be flagged with PG_owner_priv_1.
> > > > So this check can be false-positive. Maybe the following code snippet is
> > > > the solution.
> > > 
> > > How could that happen for pages used for backing a vmemmap?
> > >
> > 
> > It cannot happen for memmap_on_memory case. Howwver, it can happen for other
> > cases. E.g. the 1st pfn (of boot memory block) whose vmemmap page may be flagged
> > as PG_owner_priv_1 (if PG_swapcache is set). Then, the check is false-positive.
> 
> If this can really happen, which I am not that sure tbh, maybe a way out would be

I need to clarify this only can be happened by using this approach implemented
in this patch.

For a boot memory block, the vemmmap pages are not slef-hosted.  So the 1st pfn (of
this memory block) can be allocated to other users. e.g. an anonymous page with
PG_swapcache set.  In this patch, ALIGN_DOWN(pfn, PHYS_PFN(memory_block_size_bytes()))
will located on this anonymous page, then the check is false-positive.

[                  boot memory block                  ]
[        section        ][...][        section        ]
[                   usable memory                     ]

> to just define a new page-type as we did in previous versions of memmap_on_memory.
> In that way we would not for flags, but for its type.
>

I think we do not need to introduced a new flag, we just make sure the page
passed to PageVmemmapSelfHosted() is a backing page for vmemmap. Then we
cannot incur false-positive.  The feasible solution is walking page tables
to find a vmemmap page's backing page.

Thanks.
 
> But as I said, I am not entirely sure about the potential fallout of what you mention.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Oscar Salvador
> SUSE Labs
>