Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-154414-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <7380659d-4aa4-4214-abe9-48fb7f1abd00@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:08:07 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/huge_memory: improve
 split_huge_page_to_list_to_order() return value documentation
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
 John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>, Andrew Morton
 <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
References: <20240422194217.442933-1-david@redhat.com>
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240422194217.442933-1-david@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 2024/4/23 03:42, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> The documentation is wrong and relying on it almost resulted in BUGs in
> new callers: ever since fd4a7ac32918 ("mm: migrate: try again
> if THP split is failed due to page refcnt") we return -EAGAIN on
> unexpected folio references, not -EBUSY.
> 
> Let's fix that and also document which other return values we can
> currently see and why they could happen.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
> Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
> Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> ---
> 
> v1 -> v2:
> * Also document concurrent removal from the page cache (likely we should
>    return -EBUSY -- but likely it doesn't really matter).
> * Reference fd4a7ac32918 in patch description
> 
> ---
>   mm/huge_memory.c | 14 +++++++++++---
>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index ee12726291f1b..a7406267323ed 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -2956,7 +2956,7 @@ bool can_split_folio(struct folio *folio, int *pextra_pins)
>    *
>    * 3) The folio must not be pinned. Any unexpected folio references, including
>    *    GUP pins, will result in the folio not getting split; instead, the caller
> - *    will receive an -EBUSY.
> + *    will receive an -EAGAIN.
>    *
>    * 4) @new_order > 1, usually. Splitting to order-1 anonymous folios is not
>    *    supported for non-file-backed folios, because folio->_deferred_list, which
> @@ -2975,8 +2975,16 @@ bool can_split_folio(struct folio *folio, int *pextra_pins)
>    *
>    * Returns 0 if the huge page was split successfully.
>    *
> - * Returns -EBUSY if @page's folio is pinned, or if the anon_vma disappeared
> - * from under us.
> + * Returns -EAGAIN if the folio has unexpected reference (e.g., GUP) or if
> + * the folio was concurrently removed from the page cache.
> + *
> + * Returns -EBUSY when trying to split the huge zeropage, if the folio is
> + * under writeback, if fs-specific folio metadata cannot currently be
> + * released, or if some unexpected race happened (e.g., anon VMA disappeared,
> + * truncation).
> + *
> + * Returns -EINVAL when trying to split to an order that is incompatible
> + * with the folio. Splitting to order 0 is compatible with all folios.
>    */
>   int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
>   				     unsigned int new_order)

LGTM. Thanks for fixing the document that I missed:)
Reviewed-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>