[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2c95d0d0-a708-436f-a9d9-4b3d90eafb16@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 17:04:26 +0800
From: "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
CC: "zhangpeng (AS)" <zhangpeng362@...wei.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<lstoakes@...il.com>, <hughd@...gle.com>, <david@...hat.com>,
<vbabka@...e.cz>, <peterz@...radead.org>, <mgorman@...e.de>,
<mingo@...hat.com>, <riel@...hat.com>, <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Nanyong Sun <sunnanyong@...wei.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [Question]: major faults are still triggered after mlockall when
numa balancing
On 11/10/2023 1:32 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 09:47:24PM +0800, zhangpeng (AS) wrote:
>>> There is a stage in numa fault which will set pte as 0 in do_numa_page() :
>>> ptep_modify_prot_start() will clear the vmf->pte, until
>>> ptep_modify_prot_commit() assign a value to the vmf->pte.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Our problem scenario is as follows:
>>>
>>> task 1 task 2
>>> ------ ------
>>> /* scan global variables */
>>> do_numa_page()
>>> spin_lock(vmf->ptl)
>>> ptep_modify_prot_start()
>>> /* set vmf->pte as null */
>>> /* Access global variables */
>>> handle_pte_fault()
>>> /* no pte lock */
>>> do_pte_missing()
>>> do_fault()
>>> do_read_fault()
>>> ptep_modify_prot_commit()
>>> /* ptep update done */
>>> pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl)
>>> do_fault_around()
>>> __do_fault()
>>> filemap_fault()
>>> /* page cache is not available
>>> and a major fault is triggered */
>>> do_sync_mmap_readahead()
>>> /* page_not_uptodate and goto
>>> out_retry. */
>>>
>>> Is there any way to avoid such a major fault?
>>
>> Yes, this looks like a bug.
>>
>> It seems to me that the easiest way to fix this is not to zero the pte
>> but to make it protnone? That would send task 2 into do_numa_page()
>> where it would take the ptl, then check pte_same(), see that it's
>> changed and goto out, which will end up retrying the fault.
>
> There are other places in the kernel where the PTE is cleared, for
> example, move_ptes() in mremap.c. IIUC, we need to audit all them.
>
> Another possible solution is to check PTE again with PTL held before
> reading in file data. This will increase the overhead of major fault
> path. Is it acceptable?
What if we check the PTE without page table lock acquired?
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
>
>> I'm not particularly expert at page table manipulation, so I'll let
>> somebody who is propose an actual patch. Or you could try to do it?
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists