[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87o7u6soip.fsf@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:43:39 +1100
From: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
david@...hat.com, ziy@...dia.com, shy828301@...il.com,
jingshan@...ux.alibaba.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: gup: Re-pin pages in case of trying several
times to migrate
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> writes:
> On 10/20/2022 4:15 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> writes:
>>
>>> The migrate_pages() will return the number of {normal page, THP, hugetlb}
>>> that were not migrated, or an error code. That means it can still return
>>> the number of failure count, though the pages have been migrated
>>> successfully with several times re-try.
>> If my understanding were correct, if pages are migrated successfully
>> after several times re-tries, the return value will be 0. There's one
>> possibility for migrate_pages() to return non-zero but all pages are
>> migrated. That is, when THP is split and all subpages are migrated
>> successfully.
>
> Yeah, that's the case I tested. Thanks for pointing out. I'll re-write my
> incorrect commit message next time.
This is confusing to me. So users of move_page() will see an
unsuccessful migration even when all subpages were migrated? Seems like
we should fix the return code of migrate_pages() for this case where all
subpages were successfully migrated.
>>
>>> So we should not use the return value of migrate_pages() to determin
>>> if there are pages are failed to migrate. Instead we can validate the
>>> 'movable_page_list' to see if there are pages remained in the list,
>>> which are failed to migrate. That can mitigate the failure of longterm
>>> pinning.
>> Another choice is to use a special return value for split THP + success
>> migration. But I'm fine to use list_empty(return_pages).
>
> OK. Using list_empty(return_pages) looks more simple.
>
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>> ---
>>> mm/gup.c | 7 ++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
>>> index 5182aba..bd8cfcd 100644
>>> --- a/mm/gup.c
>>> +++ b/mm/gup.c
>>> @@ -1914,9 +1914,10 @@ static int migrate_longterm_unpinnable_pages(
>>> .gfp_mask = GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN,
>>> };
>>> - if (migrate_pages(movable_page_list, alloc_migration_target,
>>> - NULL, (unsigned long)&mtc, MIGRATE_SYNC,
>>> - MR_LONGTERM_PIN, NULL)) {
>>> + ret = migrate_pages(movable_page_list, alloc_migration_target,
>>> + NULL, (unsigned long)&mtc, MIGRATE_SYNC,
>>> + MR_LONGTERM_PIN, NULL);
>>> + if (ret < 0 || !list_empty(movable_page_list)) {
>> It seems that !list_empty() is sufficient here.
>
> OK. Drop the 'ret < 0'
>
>>> ret = -ENOMEM;
>> Why change the error code? I don't think it's a good idea to do that.
>
> The GUP need a -errno for failure or partial success when migration, and we can
> not return the number of pages failed to migrate. So returning -ENOMEM seems
> suitable for both cases?
Seem reasonable to me. migrate_pages() might return -EAGAIN which would
cause everything to be re-pinned and tried again which is not what you
want here. See the comment at the start of
check_and_migrate_movable_pages().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists