[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181122090547.GD18011@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 10:05:47 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oscar Salvador <OSalvador@...e.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] mm, fault_around: do not take a reference to a
locked page
On Wed 21-11-18 18:27:11, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 20-11-18 17:47:21, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> > > >
> > > > filemap_map_pages takes a speculative reference to each page in the
> > > > range before it tries to lock that page. While this is correct it
> > > > also can influence page migration which will bail out when seeing
> > > > an elevated reference count. The faultaround code would bail on
> > > > seeing a locked page so we can pro-actively check the PageLocked
> > > > bit before page_cache_get_speculative and prevent from pointless
> > > > reference count churn.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
> > > > Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > > though I think this patch is more useful to the avoid atomic ops,
> > > and unnecessary dirtying of the cacheline, than to avoid the very
> > > transient elevation of refcount, which will not affect page migration
> > > very much.
> >
> > Are you sure it would really be transient? In other words is it possible
> > that the fault around can block migration repeatedly under refault heavy
> > workload? I just couldn't convince myself, to be honest.
>
> I don't deny that it is possible: I expect that, using fork() (which does
> not copy the ptes in a shared file vma), you can construct a test case
> where each child faults one or another page near a page of no interest,
> and that page of no interest is a target of migration perpetually
> frustrated by filemap_map_pages()'s briefly raised refcount.
The other issue I am debugging and which very likely has the same
underlying issue in the end has shown
[ 883.930477] rac1 kernel: page:ffffea2084bf5cc0 count:1889 mapcount:1887 mapping:ffff8833c82c9ad8 index:0x6b
[ 883.930485] rac1 kernel: ext4_da_aops [ext4]
[ 883.930497] rac1 kernel: name:"libc-2.22.so"
[ 883.931241] rac1 kernel: do_migrate_range done ret=23
pattern. After we have disabled the faultaround the failure has moved to
a different page but libc hasn't shown up again. This might be a matter
of (bad)luck and timing. But we thought that it is not too unlikely for
faultaround on such a shared page to strike in.
> But I suggest that's a third-order effect: well worth fixing because
> it's easily and uncontroversially dealt with, as you have; but not of
> great importance.
>
> The first-order effect is migration conspiring to defeat itself: that's
> what my put_and_wait_on_page_locked() patch, in other thread, is about.
yes. That is obviously a much more effective fix.
> The second order effect is when a page that is really wanted is waited
> on - the target of a fault, for which page refcount is raised maybe
> long before it finally gets into the page table (whereupon it becomes
> visible to try_to_unmap(), and its mapcount matches refcount so that
> migration can fully account for the page). One class of that can be
> well dealt with by using put_and_wait_on_page_locked_killable() in
> lock_page_or_retry(), but I was keeping that as a future instalment.
>
> But I shouldn't denigrate the transient case by referring so lightly
> to migrate_pages()' 10 attempts: each of those failed attempts can
> be very expensive, unmapping and TLB flushing (including IPIs) and
> remapping. It may well be that 2 or 3 would be a more cost-effective
> number of attempts, at least when the page is mapped.
If you want some update to the comment in this function or to the
changelog, I am open of course. Right now I have
+ * Check for a locked page first, as a speculative
+ * reference may adversely influence page migration.
as suggested by William.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists