Message-ID: <3840667D-BE51-44AB-A895-DE6F5E2E5C92@sent.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:26:49 -0400
From:   "Zi Yan" <zi.yan@...t.com>
To:     "Naoya Horiguchi" <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:     "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] mm: madvise: read loop's step size beforehand in
 madvise_inject_error(), prepare for THP support.

On 24 Aug 2017, at 0:26, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:20:02AM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
>> On 23 Aug 2017, at 3:49, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 09:52:13PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>> From: Zi Yan <zi.yan@...rutgers.edu>
>>>>
>>>> The loop in madvise_inject_error() reads its step size from a page
>>>> after it is soft-offlined. It works because the page is:
>>>> 1) a hugetlb page: the page size does not change;
>>>> 2) a base page: the page size does not change;
>>>> 3) a THP: soft-offline always splits THPs, thus, it is OK to use
>>>>    PAGE_SIZE as step size.
>>>>
>>>> It will be a problem when soft-offline supports THP migrations.
>>>> When a THP is migrated without split during soft-offlining, the THP
>>>> is split after migration, thus, before and after soft-offlining page
>>>> sizes do not match. This causes a THP to be unnecessarily soft-lined,
>>>> at most, 511 times, wasting free space.
>>>
>>> Hi Zi Yan,
>>>
>>> Thank you for the suggestion.
>>>
>>> I think that when madvise(MADV_SOFT_OFFLINE) is called with some range
>>> over more than one 4kB page, the caller clearly intends to call
>>> soft_offline_page() over all 4kB pages within the range in order to
>>> simulate the multiple soft-offline events. Please note that the caller
>>> only knows that specific pages are half-broken, and expect that all such
>>> pages are offlined. So the end result should be same, whether the given
>>> range is backed by thp or not.
>>>
>>
>> But if the given virtual address is backed by a THP and the THP is soft-offlined
>> without splitting (enabled by following patches), the old for-loop will cause extra
>> 511 THPs being soft-offlined.
>>
>> For example, the caller wants to offline VPN 0-511, which is backed by a THP whose
>> address range is PFN 0-511. In the first iteration of the for-loop,
>> get_user_pages_fast(VPN0, ...) will return the THP and soft_offline_page() will offline the THP,
>> replacing it with a new THP, say PFN 512-1023, so VPN 0-511 is backed by PFN 512-1023.
>> But the original THP will be split after it is freed, thus, for-loop will not end
>> at this moment, but continues to offline VPN1, which leads to PFN 512-1023 being offlined
>> and replaced by another THP, say 1024-1535. This will go on and end up with
>> 511 extra THPs are offlined. That is why we need to this patch to tell
>> whether the THP is offlined as a whole or just its head page is offlined.
>
> Thanks for elaborating this. I understand your point.
> But I still not sure what the best behavior is.
>
> madvise(MADV_SOFT_OFFLINE) is a test feature and giving multi-page range
> on the call works like some stress testing. So multiple thp migrations
> seem to me an expected behavior. At least it behaves in the same manner
> as calling madvise(MADV_SOFT_OFFLINE) 512 times on VPN0-VPN511 separately,
> which is consistent.
>
> So I still feel like leaving the current behavior as long as your later
> patches work without this change.

Sure. I will drop Patch 1 and 2 in the next version.

Thanks for your explanation.

--
Best Regards
Yan Zi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (497 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists