Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-85464-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240221194052.927623-1-surenb@google.com> <20240221194052.927623-20-surenb@google.com>
 <2daf5f5a-401a-4ef7-8193-6dca4c064ea0@suse.cz> <CAJuCfpGt+zfFzfLSXEjeTo79gw2Be-UWBcJq=eL1qAnPf9PaiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6db0f0c8-81cb-4d04-9560-ba73d63db4b8@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <6db0f0c8-81cb-4d04-9560-ba73d63db4b8@suse.cz>
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:50:50 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpEgh1OiYNE_uKG-BqW2x97sOL9+AaTX4Jct3=WHzAv+kg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 19/36] mm: create new codetag references during page splitting
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, kent.overstreet@linux.dev, mhocko@suse.com, 
	hannes@cmpxchg.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, mgorman@suse.de, 
	dave@stgolabs.net, willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, 
	penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, corbet@lwn.net, void@manifault.com, 
	peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, 
	will@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, 
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, peterx@redhat.com, 
	david@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, mcgrof@kernel.org, masahiroy@kernel.org, 
	nathan@kernel.org, dennis@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, 
	rppt@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, 
	yosryahmed@google.com, yuzhao@google.com, dhowells@redhat.com, 
	hughd@google.com, andreyknvl@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org, 
	ndesaulniers@google.com, vvvvvv@google.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, 
	ebiggers@google.com, ytcoode@gmail.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, 
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, 
	bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, 
	iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, glider@google.com, 
	elver@google.com, dvyukov@google.com, shakeelb@google.com, 
	songmuchun@bytedance.com, jbaron@akamai.com, rientjes@google.com, 
	minchan@google.com, kaleshsingh@google.com, kernel-team@android.com, 
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, 
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:47=E2=80=AFAM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> w=
rote:
>
> On 2/27/24 17:38, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 2:10=E2=80=AFAM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz=
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/21/24 20:40, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >> > When a high-order page is split into smaller ones, each newly split
> >> > page should get its codetag. The original codetag is reused for thes=
e
> >> > pages but it's recorded as 0-byte allocation because original codeta=
g
> >> > already accounts for the original high-order allocated page.
> >>
> >> This was v3 but then you refactored (for the better) so the commit log
> >> could reflect it?
> >
> > Yes, technically mechnism didn't change but I should word it better.
> > Smth like this:
> >
> > When a high-order page is split into smaller ones, each newly split
> > page should get its codetag. After the split each split page will be
> > referencing the original codetag. The codetag's "bytes" counter
> > remains the same because the amount of allocated memory has not
> > changed, however the "calls" counter gets increased to keep the
> > counter correct when these individual pages get freed.
>
> Great, thanks.
> The concern with __free_pages() is not really related to splitting, so fo=
r
> this patch:
>
> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>
> >
> >>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> >>
> >> I was going to R-b, but now I recalled the trickiness of
> >> __free_pages() for non-compound pages if it loses the race to a
> >> speculative reference. Will the codetag handling work fine there?
> >
> > I think so. Each non-compoud page has its individual reference to its
> > codetag and will decrement it whenever the page is freed. IIUC the
> > logic in  __free_pages(), when it loses race to a speculative
> > reference it will free all pages except for the first one and the
>
> The "tail" pages of this non-compound high-order page will AFAICS not hav=
e
> code tags assigned, so alloc_tag_sub() will be a no-op (or a warning with
> _DEBUG).

Yes, that is correct.

>
> > first one will be freed when the last put_page() happens. If prior to
> > this all these pages were split from one page then all of them will
> > have their own reference which points to the same codetag.
>
> Yeah I'm assuming there's no split before the freeing. This patch about
> splitting just reminded me of that tricky freeing scenario.

Ah, I see. I thought you were talking about a page that was previously spli=
t.

>
> So IIUC the "else if (!head)" path of __free_pages() will do nothing abou=
t
> the "tail" pages wrt code tags as there are no code tags.
> Then whoever took the speculative "head" page reference will put_page() a=
nd
> free it, which will end up in alloc_tag_sub(). This will decrement calls
> properly, but bytes will become imbalanced, because that put_page() will
> pass order-0 worth of bytes - the original order is lost.

Yeah, that's true. put_page() will end up calling
free_unref_page(&folio->page, 0) even if the original order was more
than 0.

>
> Now this might be rare enough that it's not worth fixing if that would be
> too complicated, just FYI.

Yeah. We can fix this by subtracting the "bytes" counter of the "head"
page for all free_the_page(page + (1 << order), order) calls we do
inside __free_pages(). But we can't simply use pgalloc_tag_sub()
because the "calls" counter will get over-decremented (we allocated
all of these pages with one call). I'll need to introduce a new
pgalloc_tag_sub_bytes() API and use it here. I feel it's too targeted
of a solution but OTOH this is a special situation, so maybe it's
acceptable. WDYT?

>
>
> > Every time
> > one of these pages are freed that codetag's "bytes" and "calls"
> > counters will be decremented. I think accounting will work correctly
> > irrespective of where these pages are freed, in __free_pages() or by
> > put_page().
> >
>