[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58be2b37-0c3a-06d8-35f5-50bf4b765fb2@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 06:11:26 +0300
From: Mika Penttilä <mpenttil@...hat.com>
To: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Sierra Guiza, Alejandro (Alex)" <alex.sierra@....com>,
Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>,
Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>, linuxram@...ibm.com,
paulus@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/hmm-tests: Add test for dirty bits
On 15.8.2022 5.35, Alistair Popple wrote:
>
> Mika Penttilä <mpenttil@...hat.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Alistair!
>>
>> On 12.8.2022 8.22, Alistair Popple wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> + buffer->ptr = mmap(NULL, size,
>>> + PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
>>> + MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS,
>>> + buffer->fd, 0);
>>> + ASSERT_NE(buffer->ptr, MAP_FAILED);
>>> +
>>> + /* Initialize buffer in system memory. */
>>> + for (i = 0, ptr = buffer->ptr; i < size / sizeof(*ptr); ++i)
>>> + ptr[i] = 0;
>>> +
>>> + ASSERT_FALSE(write_cgroup_param(cgroup, "memory.reclaim", 1UL<<30));
>>> +
>>> + /* Fault pages back in from swap as clean pages */
>>> + for (i = 0, ptr = buffer->ptr; i < size / sizeof(*ptr); ++i)
>>> + tmp += ptr[i];
>>> +
>>> + /* Dirty the pte */
>>> + for (i = 0, ptr = buffer->ptr; i < size / sizeof(*ptr); ++i)
>>> + ptr[i] = i;
>>> +
>>
>> The anon pages are quite likely in memory at this point, and dirty in pte.
>
> Why would the pte be dirty? I just confirmed using some modified pagemap
> code that on my system at least this isn't the case.
>
>>> + /*
>>> + * Attempt to migrate memory to device, which should fail because
>>> + * hopefully some pages are backed by swap storage.
>>> + */
>>> + ASSERT_TRUE(hmm_migrate_sys_to_dev(self->fd, buffer, npages));
>>
>> And pages marked dirty also now. But could you elaborate how and where the above
>> fails in more detail, couldn't immediately see it...
>
> Not if you don't have patch 1 of this series applied. If the
> trylock_page() in migrate_vma_collect_pmd() succeeds (which it almost
> always does) it will have cleared the pte without setting PageDirty.
>
Ah yes but I meant with the patch 1 applied, the comment "Attempt to
migrate memory to device, which should fail because hopefully some pages
are backed by swap storage" indicates that hmm_migrate_sys_to_dev()
would fail..and there's that ASSERT_TRUE which means fail here.
So I understand the data loss but where is the hmm_migrate_sys_to_dev()
failing, with or wihtout patch 1 applied?
> So now we have a dirty page without PageDirty set and without a dirty
> pte. If this page gets swapped back to disk and is still in the swap
> cache data will be lost because reclaim will see a clean page and won't
> write it out again.
>
> At least that's my understanding - please let me know if you see
> something that doesn't make sense.
>
>>> +
>>> + ASSERT_FALSE(write_cgroup_param(cgroup, "memory.reclaim", 1UL<<30));
>>> +
>>> + /* Check we still see the updated data after restoring from swap. */
>>> + for (i = 0, ptr = buffer->ptr; i < size / sizeof(*ptr); ++i)
>>> + ASSERT_EQ(ptr[i], i);
>>> +
>>> + hmm_buffer_free(buffer);
>>> + destroy_cgroup();
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> /*
>>> * Read anonymous memory multiple times.
>>> */
>>
>>
>> --Mika
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists