Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-204028-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240521040244.48760-1-ioworker0@gmail.com> <20240521040244.48760-3-ioworker0@gmail.com>
 <fd16b219-bc46-484a-8581-a21240440fa6@redhat.com> <CAK1f24kwf4gDwK=8X4z1bM9-H6_M9QKy6-ko9pTUZij-W=40wg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d319f00e-9dfb-43b1-ae81-a2e2afdf36c4@redhat.com> <CAK1f24kKra71RSQdFOpQecU6+yMELC748irKUt54Kg64-P=4-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <758f7be7-c17e-46d1-879f-83340ec85749@redhat.com> <5a728148-ed93-4d68-a86f-9be3612dedbb@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5a728148-ed93-4d68-a86f-9be3612dedbb@redhat.com>
From: Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 17:38:52 +0800
Message-ID: <CAK1f24nMbW_UvCTq=K0aFu9=7psYZ9wmHq47J=AK7VYmpCpC4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] mm/rmap: integrate PMD-mapped folio splitting into
 pagewalk loop
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, willy@infradead.org, sj@kernel.org, 
	baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, maskray@google.com, ziy@nvidia.com, 
	ryan.roberts@arm.com, 21cnbao@gmail.com, mhocko@suse.com, 
	fengwei.yin@intel.com, zokeefe@google.com, shy828301@gmail.com, 
	xiehuan09@gmail.com, libang.li@antgroup.com, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, 
	songmuchun@bytedance.com, peterx@redhat.com, minchan@kernel.org, 
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 4:06=E2=80=AFPM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>=
 wrote:
>
> On 06.06.24 10:01, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 06.06.24 05:55, Lance Yang wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:28=E2=80=AFPM David Hildenbrand <david@redha=
t.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 05.06.24 16:20, Lance Yang wrote:
> >>>> Hi David,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 8:46=E2=80=AFPM David Hildenbrand <david@redh=
at.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 21.05.24 06:02, Lance Yang wrote:
> >>>>>> In preparation for supporting try_to_unmap_one() to unmap PMD-mapp=
ed
> >>>>>> folios, start the pagewalk first, then call split_huge_pmd_address=
() to
> >>>>>> split the folio.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Since TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD will no longer perform immediately, we mi=
ght
> >>>>>> encounter a PMD-mapped THP missing the mlock in the VM_LOCKED rang=
e during
> >>>>>> the page walk. It=E2=80=99s probably necessary to mlock this THP t=
o prevent it from
> >>>>>> being picked up during page reclaim.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> >>>>>> Suggested-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [...] again, sorry for the late review.
> >>>>
> >>>> No worries at all, thanks for taking time to review!
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> >>>>>> index ddffa30c79fb..08a93347f283 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> >>>>>> @@ -1640,9 +1640,6 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct folio *f=
olio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >>>>>>          if (flags & TTU_SYNC)
> >>>>>>                  pvmw.flags =3D PVMW_SYNC;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -     if (flags & TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD)
> >>>>>> -             split_huge_pmd_address(vma, address, false, folio);
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>>          /*
> >>>>>>           * For THP, we have to assume the worse case ie pmd for i=
nvalidation.
> >>>>>>           * For hugetlb, it could be much worse if we need to do p=
ud
> >>>>>> @@ -1668,20 +1665,35 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct folio =
*folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >>>>>>          mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>          while (page_vma_mapped_walk(&pvmw)) {
> >>>>>> -             /* Unexpected PMD-mapped THP? */
> >>>>>> -             VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!pvmw.pte, folio);
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>>                  /*
> >>>>>>                   * If the folio is in an mlock()d vma, we must no=
t swap it out.
> >>>>>>                   */
> >>>>>>                  if (!(flags & TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK) &&
> >>>>>>                      (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)) {
> >>>>>>                          /* Restore the mlock which got missed */
> >>>>>> -                     if (!folio_test_large(folio))
> >>>>>> +                     if (!folio_test_large(folio) ||
> >>>>>> +                         (!pvmw.pte && (flags & TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PM=
D)))
> >>>>>>                                  mlock_vma_folio(folio, vma);

Should we still keep the '!pvmw.pte' here? Something like:

if (!folio_test_large(folio) || !pvmw.pte)
    mlock_vma_folio(folio, vma);

We can mlock the THP to prevent it from being picked up during page reclaim=
.

David, I=E2=80=99d like to hear your thoughts on this ;)

Thanks,
Lance

> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can you elaborate why you think this would be required? If we would=
 have
> >>>>> performed the  split_huge_pmd_address() beforehand, we would still =
be
> >>>>> left with a large folio, no?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yep, there would still be a large folio, but it wouldn't be PMD-mapp=
ed.
> >>>>
> >>>> After Weifeng's series[1], the kernel supports mlock for PTE-mapped =
large
> >>>> folio, but there are a few scenarios where we don't mlock a large fo=
lio, such
> >>>> as when it crosses a VM_LOCKed VMA boundary.
> >>>>
> >>>>     -                     if (!folio_test_large(folio))
> >>>>     +                     if (!folio_test_large(folio) ||
> >>>>     +                         (!pvmw.pte && (flags & TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_=
PMD)))
> >>>>
> >>>> And this check is just future-proofing and likely unnecessary. If en=
countering a
> >>>> PMD-mapped THP missing the mlock for some reason, we can mlock this
> >>>> THP to prevent it from being picked up during page reclaim, since it=
 is fully
> >>>> mapped and doesn't cross the VMA boundary, IIUC.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think?
> >>>> I would appreciate any suggestions regarding this check ;)
> >>>
> >>> Reading this patch only, I wonder if this change makes sense in the
> >>> context here.
> >>
> >> Allow me to try explaining it again ;)
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Before this patch, we would have PTE-mapped the PMD-mapped THP before
> >>> reaching this call and skipped it due to "!folio_test_large(folio)".
> >>
> >> Yes, there is only a PTE-mapped THP when doing the "!folio_test_large(=
folio)"
> >> check, as we will first conditionally split the PMD via
> >> split_huge_pmd_address().
> >>
> >>>
> >>> After this patch, we either
> >>
> >> Things will change. We'll first do the "!folio_test_large(folio)" chec=
k, then
> >> conditionally split the PMD via split_huge_pmd_address().
> >>
> >>>
> >>> a) PTE-remap the THP after this check, but retry and end-up here agai=
n,
> >>> whereby we would skip it due to "!folio_test_large(folio)".
> >>
> >> Hmm...
> >>
> >> IIUC, we will skip it after this check, stop the page walk, and not
> >> PTE-remap the THP.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> b) Discard the PMD-mapped THP due to lazyfree directly. Can that
> >>> co-exist with mlock and what would be the problem here with mlock?
> >>
> >> Before discarding a PMD-mapped THP as a whole, as patch #3 did,
> >> we also perform the "!folio_test_large(folio)" check. If the THP coexi=
sts
> >> with mlock, we will skip it, stop the page walk, and not discard it. I=
IUC.
> >
> > But "!folio_test_large(folio)" would *skip* the THP and not consider it
> > regarding mlock.
> >
> > I'm probably missing something
>
> I'm stupid, I missed that we still do the "goto walk_done_err;", only
> that we don't do the mlock_vma_folio(folio, vma);
>
> Yes, let's drop it for now! :)
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>