Date:	Tue, 4 Dec 2012 16:22:07 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
	Robert Love <rlove@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Mike Hommey <mh@...ndium.org>, Taras Glek <tglek@...illa.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] Support volatile range for anon vma

On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:57:20PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> On 12/03/2012 04:00 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 08:18:01PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> >>On 11/21/2012 04:36 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> >>>2) Being able to use this with tmpfs files. I'm currently trying
> >>>to better understand the rmap code, looking to see if there's a
> >>>way to have try_to_unmap_file() work similarly to
> >>>try_to_unmap_anon(), to allow allow users to madvise() on mmapped
> >>>tmpfs files. This would provide a very similar interface as to
> >>>what I've been proposing with fadvise/fallocate, but just using
> >>>process virtual addresses instead of (fd, offset) pairs.   The
> >>>benefit with (fd,offset) pairs for Android is that its easier to
> >>>manage shared volatile ranges between two processes that are
> >>>sharing data via an mmapped tmpfs file (although this actual use
> >>>case may be fairly rare).  I believe we should still be able to
> >>>rework the ashmem internals to use madvise (which would provide
> >>>legacy support for existing android apps), so then its just a
> >>>question of if we could then eventually convince Android apps to
> >>>use the madvise interface directly, rather then the ashmem unpin
> >>>ioctl.
> >>Hey Minchan,
> >>     I've been playing around with your patch trying to better
> >>understand your approach and to extend it to support tmpfs files. In
> >>doing so I've found a few bugs, and have some rough fixes I wanted
> >>to share. There's still a few edge cases I need to deal with (the
> >>vma-purged flag isn't being properly handled through vma merge/split
> >>operations), but its starting to come along.
> >Hmm, my patch doesn't allow to merge volatile with another one by
> >inserting VM_VOLATILE into VM_SPECIAL so I guess merge isn't problem.
> >In case of split, __split_vma copy old vma to new vma like this
> >
> >         *new = *vma;
> >
> >So the problem shouldn't happen, I guess.
> >Did you see the real problem about that?
> Yes, depending on the pattern that MADV_VOLATILE and MADV_NOVOLATILE
> is applied, we can get a result where data is purged, but we aren't
> notified of it.  Also, since madvise returns early if it encounters
> an error, in the case where you have checkerboard volatile regions
> (say every other page is volatile), which you mark non-volatile with
> one large MADV_NOVOLATILE call, the first volatile vma will be
> marked non-volatile, but since it returns purged, the madvise loop
> will stop and the following volatile regions will be left volatile.
> 
> The patches in the git tree below which handle the perged state
> better seem to work for my tests, as far as resolving any
> overlapping calls. Of course there may yet still be problems I've
> not found.
> 
> >>Anyway, take a look at the tree here and let me know what you think.
> >>http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/jstultz/android-dev.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/dev/minchan-anonvol
> 
> Eager to hear what you think!

Below two patches look good to me.

[rmap: Simplify volatility checking by moving it out of try_to_unmap_one]
[rmap: ClearPageDirty() when returning SWAP_DISCARD]

[madvise: Fix NOVOLATILE bug]
I can't understand description of the patch.
Could you elaborate it with example?

[madvise: Fixup vma->purged handling]
I included VM_VOLATILE into VM_SPECIAL intentionally.
If comment of VM_SPECIAL is right, merge with volatile vmas shouldn't happen.
So I guess you see other problem. When I see my source code today, locking
scheme/purge handling is totally broken. I will look at it. Maybe you are seeing
bug related that. Part of patch is needed. It could be separate patch.
I will merge it.

ff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
index 65af0b5..5469d76 100644
--- a/mm/madvise.c
+++ b/mm/madvise.c
@@ -139,8 +139,10 @@ success:
        if (behavior == MADV_NOVOLATILE || behavior == MADV_VOLATILE)
                volatile_lock(vma);
        vma->vm_flags = new_flags;
-       if (behavior == MADV_NOVOLATILE)
+       if (behavior == MADV_NOVOLATILE) {
                error = vma->purged;
+               vma->purged = 0;
+       }
        if (behavior == MADV_NOVOLATILE || behavior == MADV_VOLATILE)
                volatile_unlock(vma);
 out:

First of all, after I resolve above issue, let's talk about tmpfs volatile.
Thanks for the fix, John!

> 
> Thanks again!
> -john
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists