[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YLaYIAeNUlitUy0z@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 21:27:12 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Xu Yu <xuyu@...ux.alibaba.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
gavin.dg@...ux.alibaba.com, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, thp: relax migration wait when failed to get tail
page
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 12:10:48PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 09:55:56AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >
> > > Well caught: you're absolutely right that there's a bug there.
> > > But isn't cond_resched() just papering over the real bug, and
> > > what it should do is a "page = compound_head(page);" before the
> > > get_page_unless_zero()? How does that work out in your testing?
> >
> > You do realise you're strengthening my case for folios by suggesting
> > that, don't you? ;-)
>
> Hah! Well, I do realize that I'm offering you a marketing opportunity.
> And you won't believe how many patches I dread to post for fear of that ;-)
>
> But I'm not so sure that it strengthens your case: apparently folios
> had not detected this? Or do you have a hoard of folio-detected fixes
> waiting for the day, and a folio-kit for each of the stable releases?
Oh, I wish! I haven't been working on converting the
migration code to use folios. If I'd taken the step to convert
put_and_wait_on_page_locked() to folio_put_and_wait_locked(), I would
have fixed the bug, but I'm not sure I would have noticed that it was
fixing a bug. I would have probably converted migration_entry_to_page()
to be migration_entry_to_folio() and just inadvertently fixed it.
> > I was going to suggest that it won't make any difference because the
> > page reference count is frozen, but the freezing happens after the call
> > to unmap_page(), so it may make a difference.
>
> I think that's a good point: I may have just jumped on the missing
> compound_head(), without thinking it through as far as you have.
>
> I'm having trouble remembering the dynamics now; but I think there
> are cond_resched()s in the unmap_page() part, so the splitter may
> get preempted even on a non-preempt kernel; whereas the frozen
> part is all done expeditiously, with interrupts disabled.
That would certainly make a difference.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists