Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-110489-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240321163705.3067592-1-surenb@google.com> <20240321163705.3067592-21-surenb@google.com>
 <Zfxk9aFhF7O_-T3c@casper.infradead.org> <ZfxohXDDCx-_cJYa@casper.infradead.org>
 <CAJuCfpHjfKYNyGeALZzwJ1k_AKOm_qcgKkx5zR+X6eyWmsZTLw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpHjfKYNyGeALZzwJ1k_AKOm_qcgKkx5zR+X6eyWmsZTLw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 10:22:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpGeep=4CqW+z4K=hXf2A6V3aWZLi_XSeEuEz1v=S7qKnw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 20/37] mm: fix non-compound multi-order memory
 accounting in __free_pages
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, kent.overstreet@linux.dev, mhocko@suse.com, 
	vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, mgorman@suse.de, 
	dave@stgolabs.net, 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, jhubbard@nvidia.com, 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, 
	songmuchun@bytedance.com, jbaron@akamai.com, aliceryhl@google.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 Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:19=E2=80=AFAM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.=
com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:04=E2=80=AFAM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.=
org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 04:48:53PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 09:36:42AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > > @@ -4700,12 +4700,15 @@ void __free_pages(struct page *page, unsign=
ed int order)
> > > >  {
> > > >     /* get PageHead before we drop reference */
> > > >     int head =3D PageHead(page);
> > > > +   struct alloc_tag *tag =3D pgalloc_tag_get(page);
> > > >
> > > >     if (put_page_testzero(page))
> > > >             free_the_page(page, order);
> > > > -   else if (!head)
> > > > +   else if (!head) {
> > > > +           pgalloc_tag_sub_pages(tag, (1 << order) - 1);
> > > >             while (order-- > 0)
> > > >                     free_the_page(page + (1 << order), order);
> > > > +   }
> > >
> > > Why do you need these new functions instead of just:
> > >
> > > +     else if (!head) {
> > > +             pgalloc_tag_sub(page, (1 << order) - 1);
> > >               while (order-- > 0)
> > >                       free_the_page(page + (1 << order), order);
> > > +     }
> >
> > Actually, I'm not sure this is safe (I don't fully understand codetags,
> > so it may be safe).  What can happen is that the put_page() can come in
> > before the pgalloc_tag_sub(), and then that page can be allocated again=
.
> > Will that cause confusion?

I indirectly answered your question in the reason #2 but to be clear,
we obtain codetag before we do put_page() here, therefore it's valid.
If another page is allocated and it points to the same codetag, then
it will operate on the same codetag per-cpu counters and that should
not be a problem.

>
> So, there are two reasons I unfortunately can't reuse pgalloc_tag_sub():
>
> 1. We need to subtract `bytes` counter from the codetag but not the
> `calls` counter, otherwise the final accounting will be incorrect.
> This is because we effectively allocated multiple pages with one call
> but freeing them with separate calls here. pgalloc_tag_sub_pages()
> subtracts bytes but keeps calls counter the same. I mentioned this in
> here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAJuCfpEgh1OiYNE_uKG-BqW2x97sOL9+AaTX4J=
ct3=3DWHzAv+kg@mail.gmail.com/
> 2. The codetag object itself is stable, it's created at build time.
> The exception is when we unload modules and the codetag section gets
> freed but during module unloading we check that all module codetags
> are not referenced anymore and we prevent unloading this section if
> any of them are still referenced (should not normally happen). That
> said, the reference to the codetag (in this case from the page_ext)
> might change from under us and we have to make sure it's valid. We
> ensure that here by getting the codetag itself with pgalloc_tag_get()
> *before* calling put_page_testzero(), which ensures its stability.
>
> >