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: <20230712060144.3006358-1-fengwei.yin@intel.com>
 <20230712060144.3006358-4-fengwei.yin@intel.com> <CAOUHufYef--8MxFettL6fOGjVx2vyZHZQU6EEaTCoW0XBvuC8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOUHufZ6=9P_=CAOQyw0xw-3q707q-1FVV09dBNDC-hpcpj2Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <40cbc39e-5179-c2f4-3cea-0a98395aaff1@intel.com> <CAOUHufZHyEvU-c2O6B6stM_QVMxc22zV4Szn52myYqjdZvptUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <16844254-7248-f557-b1eb-b8b102c877a2@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <16844254-7248-f557-b1eb-b8b102c877a2@intel.com>
From:   Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:48:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkYAkVOE2caqEj_hTmm47Kex451prBQ1wKTRUiOwnDcwNA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] mm: mlock: update mlock_pte_range to handle
 large folio
To:     Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>
Cc:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        willy@infradead.org, david@redhat.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com,
        shy828301@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 6:58=E2=80=AFPM Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>=
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/17/23 08:35, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 6:00=E2=80=AFPM Yin, Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel=
.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/15/2023 2:06 PM, Yu Zhao wrote:
> >>> There is a problem here that I didn't have the time to elaborate: we
> >>> can't mlock() a folio that is within the range but not fully mapped
> >>> because this folio can be on the deferred split queue. When the split
> >>> happens, those unmapped folios (not mapped by this vma but are mapped
> >>> into other vmas) will be stranded on the unevictable lru.
> >>
> >> This should be fine unless I missed something. During large folio spli=
t,
> >> the unmap_folio() will be migrate(anon)/unmap(file) folio. Folio will =
be
> >> munlocked in unmap_folio(). So the head/tail pages will be evictable a=
lways.
> >
> > It's close but not entirely accurate: munlock can fail on isolated foli=
os.
> Yes. The munlock just clear PG_mlocked bit but with PG_unevictable left.
>
> Could this also happen against normal 4K page? I mean when user try to mu=
nlock
> a normal 4K page and this 4K page is isolated. So it become unevictable p=
age?

Looks like it can be possible. If cpu 1 is in __munlock_folio() and
cpu 2 is isolating the folio for any purpose:

cpu1                                        cpu2
                                                isolate folio
folio_test_clear_lru() // 0
                                                putback folio // add
to unevictable list
folio_test_clear_mlocked()


The page would be stranded on the unevictable list in this case, no?
Maybe we should only try to isolate the page (clear PG_lru) after we
possibly clear PG_mlocked? In this case if we fail to isolate we know
for sure that whoever has the page isolated will observe that
PG_mlocked is clear and correctly make the page evictable.

This probably would be complicated with the current implementation, as
we first need to decrement mlock_count to determine if we want to
clear PG_mlocked, and to do so we need to isolate the page as
mlock_count overlays page->lru. With the proposal in [1] to rework
mlock_count, it might be much simpler as far as I can tell. I intend
to refresh this proposal soon-ish.

[1]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230618065719.1363271-1-yosryahmed@google.=
com/

>
>
> Regards
> Yin, Fengwei
>