Message-ID: <796cb545-7376-16a2-db3e-bc9a6ca9894d@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:36:35 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To:     Zi Yan <zi.yan@...rutgers.edu>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mhocko@...e.com, will.deacon@....com,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/thp: Correctly differentiate between mapped THP and
 PMD migration entry



On 10/15/2018 06:23 AM, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 12 Oct 2018, at 4:00, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
>> On 10/10/2018 06:13 PM, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> On 10 Oct 2018, at 0:05, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/09/2018 07:28 PM, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>>> cc: Naoya Horiguchi (who proposed to use !_PAGE_PRESENT && !_PAGE_PSE for x86
>>>>> PMD migration entry check)
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8 Oct 2018, at 23:58, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A normal mapped THP page at PMD level should be correctly differentiated
>>>>>> from a PMD migration entry while walking the page table. A mapped THP would
>>>>>> additionally check positive for pmd_present() along with pmd_trans_huge()
>>>>>> as compared to a PMD migration entry. This just adds a new conditional test
>>>>>> differentiating the two while walking the page table.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 616b8371539a6 ("mm: thp: enable thp migration in generic path")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> On X86, pmd_trans_huge() and is_pmd_migration_entry() are always mutually
>>>>>> exclusive which makes the current conditional block work for both mapped
>>>>>> and migration entries. This is not same with arm64 where pmd_trans_huge()
>>>>>
>>>>> !pmd_present() && pmd_trans_huge() is used to represent THPs under splitting,
>>>>
>>>> Not really if we just look at code in the conditional blocks.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I explained it wrong above. Sorry about that.
>>>
>>> In x86, pmd_present() checks (_PAGE_PRESENT | _PAGE_PROTNONE | _PAGE_PSE),
>>> thus, it returns true even if the present bit is cleared but PSE bit is set.
>>
>> Okay.
>>
>>> This is done so, because THPs under splitting are regarded as present in the kernel
>>> but not present when a hardware page table walker checks it.
>>
>> Okay.
>>
>>>
>>> For PMD migration entry, which should be regarded as not present, if PSE bit
>>> is set, which makes pmd_trans_huge() returns true, like ARM64 does, all
>>> PMD migration entries will be regarded as present
>>
>> Okay to make pmd_present() return false pmd_trans_huge() has to return false
>> as well. Is there anything which can be done to get around this problem on
>> X86 ? pmd_trans_huge() returning true for a migration entry sounds logical.
>> Otherwise we would revert the condition block order to accommodate both the
>> implementation for pmd_trans_huge() as suggested by Kirill before or just
>> consider this patch forward.
>>
>> Because I am not really sure yet about the idea of getting pmd_present()
>> check into pmd_trans_huge() on arm64 just to make it fit into this semantics
>> as suggested by Will. If a PMD is trans huge page or not should not depend on
>> whether it is present or not.
> 
> In terms of THPs, we have three cases: a present THP, a THP under splitting,
> and a THP under migration. pmd_present() and pmd_trans_huge() both return true
> for a present THP and a THP under splitting, because they discover _PAGE_PSE bit

Then how do we differentiate between a mapped THP and a splitting THP.

> is set for both cases, whereas they both return false for a THP under migration.
> You want to change them to make pmd_trans_huge() returns true for a THP under migration
> instead of false to help ARM64’s support for THP migration.
I am just trying to understand the rationale behind this semantics and see where
it should be fixed.

I think the fundamental problem here is that THP under split has been difficult
to be re-presented through the available helper functions and in turn PTE bits.

The following checks

1) pmd_present()
2) pmd_trans_huge()

Represent three THP states

1) Mapped THP		(pmd_present && pmd_trans_huge)
2) Splitting THP	(pmd_present && pmd_trans_huge)
3) Migrating THP	(!pmd_present && !pmd_trans_huge)

The problem is if we make pmd_trans_huge() return true for all the three states
which sounds logical because they are all still trans huge PMD, then pmd_present()
can only represent two states not three as required.

> 
> For x86, this change requires:
> 1. changing the condition in pmd_trans_huge(), so that it returns true for
> PMD migration entries;
> 2. changing the code, which calls pmd_trans_huge(), to match the new logic.
Can those be fixed with an additional check for pmd_present() as suggested here
in this patch ? Asking because in case we could not get common semantics for
these helpers on all arch that would be a fall back option for the moment.

> 
> Another problem I see is that x86’s pmd_present() returns true for a THP under
> splitting but ARM64’s pmd_present() returns false for a THP under splitting.

But how did you conclude this ? I dont see any explicit helper for splitting
THP. Could you please point me in the code ?

> I do not know if there is any correctness issue with this. So I copy Andrea
> here, since he made x86’s pmd_present() returns true for a THP under splitting
> as an optimization. I want to understand more about it and potentially make
> x86 and ARM64 (maybe all other architectures, too) return the same value
> for all three cases mentioned above.

I agree. Fixing the semantics is the right thing to do. I am kind of wondering if
it would be a good idea to have explicit helpers for (1) mapped THP, (2) splitting
THP like the one for (3) migrating THP (e.g is_pmd_migration_entry) and use them
in various conditional blocks instead of looking out for multiple checks like
pmd_trans_huge(), pmd_present() etc. It will help unify the semantics as well.

> 
> 
> Hi Andrea, what is the purpose/benefit of making x86’s pmd_present() returns true
> for a THP under splitting? Does it cause problems when ARM64’s pmd_present()
> returns false in the same situation?
> 
> 
>>>
>>> My concern is that if ARM64’s pmd_trans_huge() returns true for migration
>>> entries, unlike x86, there might be bugs triggered in the kernel when
>>> THP migration is enabled in ARM64.
>>
>> Right and that is exactly what we are trying to fix with this patch.
>>
> 
> I am not sure this patch can fix the problem in ARM64, because many other places
> in the kernel, pmd_trans_huge() still returns false for a THP under migration.
> We may need more comprehensive fixes for ARM64.
Are there more places where semantics needs to be fixed than what was originally
added through 616b8371539a ("mm: thp: enable thp migration in generic path").

Powered by blists - more mailing lists