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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220921060616.73086-1-ying.huang@intel.com> <20220921060616.73086-3-ying.huang@intel.com>
 <87o7v2lbn4.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal> <CAHbLzkpPNbggD+AaT7wFQXkKqCS2cXnq=Xv3m4WuHLMBWGTmpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87fsgdllmb.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal> <87ill937qe.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <46807002-c42c-1232-0938-5b48050171ee@nvidia.com> <CAHbLzkqRyav0fZ5gzaKbkTfGBxkQXTpu0NJz-A9j7UaHhVBxEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87pmfgjnpj.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal> <87czbg2s3b.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <240bbb01-1f26-71ee-233a-ad65313ac358@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <240bbb01-1f26-71ee-233a-ad65313ac358@nvidia.com>
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2022 18:49:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkpnCTD_c60QPu25hPymCYwLP6fYRMxp1EWmzX0SBF4g1w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/6] mm/migrate_pages: split unmap_and_move() to _unmap()
 and _move()
To:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Cc:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 6:45 PM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/27/22 18:41, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >>>> I also agree that we cannot make any rules such as "do not lock > 1 page
> >>>> at the same time, elsewhere in the kernel", because it is already
> >>>> happening, for example in page-writeback.c, which locks PAGEVEC_SIZE
> >>>> (15) pages per batch [1].
> >>
> >> That's not really the case though. The inner loop of write_cache_page()
> >> only ever locks one page at a time, either directly via the
> >> unlock_page() on L2338 (those goto's are amazing) or indirectly via
> >> (*writepage)() on L2359.
> >>
> >> So there's no deadlock potential there because unlocking any previously
> >> locked page(s) doesn't depend on obtaining the lock for another page.
> >> Unless I've missed something?
> >
> > Yes.  This is my understanding too after checking ext4_writepage().
> >
>
> Yes, I missed the ".writepage() shall unlock the page" design point. Now
> it seems much more reasonable and safer. :)

.writepage is deprecated (see
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20220719041311.709250-1-hch@lst.de/),
write back actually uses .writepages.

>
> thanks,
>
> --
> John Hubbard
> NVIDIA
>