Message-ID: <CAGsJ_4wgMtY2=xRFSx8xAgROR97MevAtCYRUG+Xy+n6FUw9a1w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:42:59 +1300
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	chrisl@...nel.org, yuzhao@...gle.com, hanchuanhua@...o.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org, ying.huang@...el.com, 
	xiang@...nel.org, mhocko@...e.com, shy828301@...il.com, 
	wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>, 
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: hold PTL from the first PTE while reclaiming a
 large folio

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 3:27 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 04.03.24 14:03, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> > On 04/03/2024 12:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 04.03.24 13:20, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> >>> Hi Barry,
> >>>
> >>> On 04/03/2024 10:37, Barry Song wrote:
> >>>> From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> page_vma_mapped_walk() within try_to_unmap_one() races with other
> >>>> PTEs modification such as break-before-make, while iterating PTEs
> >>>> of a large folio, it will only begin to acquire PTL after it gets
> >>>> a valid(present) PTE. break-before-make intermediately sets PTEs
> >>>> to pte_none. Thus, a large folio's PTEs might be partially skipped
> >>>> in try_to_unmap_one().
> >>>
> >>> I just want to check my understanding here - I think the problem occurs for
> >>> PTE-mapped, PMD-sized folios as well as smaller-than-PMD-size large folios? Now
> >>> that I've had a look at the code and have a better understanding, I think that
> >>> must be the case? And therefore this problem exists independently of my work to
> >>> support swap-out of mTHP? (From your previous report I was under the impression
> >>> that it only affected mTHP).
> >>>
> >>> Its just that the problem is becoming more pronounced because with mTHP,
> >>> PTE-mapped large folios are much more common?
> >>
> >> That is my understanding.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> For example, for an anon folio, after try_to_unmap_one(), we may
> >>>> have PTE0 present, while PTE1 ~ PTE(nr_pages - 1) are swap entries.
> >>>> So folio will be still mapped, the folio fails to be reclaimed.
> >>>> What’s even more worrying is, its PTEs are no longer in a unified
> >>>> state. This might lead to accident folio_split() afterwards. And
> >>>> since a part of PTEs are now swap entries, accessing them will
> >>>> incur page fault - do_swap_page.
> >>>> It creates both anxiety and more expense. While we can't avoid
> >>>> userspace's unmap to break up unified PTEs such as CONT-PTE for
> >>>> a large folio, we can indeed keep away from kernel's breaking up
> >>>> them due to its code design.
> >>>> This patch is holding PTL from PTE0, thus, the folio will either
> >>>> be entirely reclaimed or entirely kept. On the other hand, this
> >>>> approach doesn't increase PTL contention. Even w/o the patch,
> >>>> page_vma_mapped_walk() will always get PTL after it sometimes
> >>>> skips one or two PTEs because intermediate break-before-makes
> >>>> are short, according to test. Of course, even w/o this patch,
> >>>> the vast majority of try_to_unmap_one still can get PTL from
> >>>> PTE0. This patch makes the number 100%.
> >>>> The other option is that we can give up in try_to_unmap_one
> >>>> once we find PTE0 is not the first entry we get PTL, we call
> >>>> page_vma_mapped_walk_done() to end the iteration at this case.
> >>>> This will keep the unified PTEs while the folio isn't reclaimed.
> >>>> The result is quite similar with small folios with one PTE -
> >>>> either entirely reclaimed or entirely kept.
> >>>> Reclaiming large folios by holding PTL from PTE0 seems a better
> >>>> option comparing to giving up after detecting PTL begins from
> >>>> non-PTE0.
> >>>>
> >>
> >> I'm sure that wall of text can be formatted in a better way :) . Also, I think
> >> we can drop some of the details,
> >>
> >> If you need some inspiration, I can give it a shot.
> >>
> >>>> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
> >>>
> >>> Do we need a Fixes tag?
> >>>
> >>
> >> What would be the description of the problem we are fixing?
> >>
> >> 1) failing to unmap?
> >>
> >> That can happen with small folios as well IIUC.
> >>
> >> 2) Putting the large folio on the deferred split queue?
> >>
> >> That sounds more reasonable.
> >
> > Isn't the real problem today that we can end up writng a THP to the swap file
> > (so 2M more IO and space used) but we can't remove it from memory, so no actual
> > reclaim happens? Although I guess your (2) is really just another way of saying
> > that.
>
> The same could happen with small folios I believe? We might end up
> running into the
>
> folio_mapped()
>
> after the try_to_unmap().
>
> Note that the actual I/O does not happen during add_to_swap(), but
> during the pageout() call when we find the folio to be dirty.
>
> So there would not actually be more I/O. Only swap space would be
> reserved, that would be used later when not running into the race.

I am not worried about small folios at all as they have only one PTE.
so the PTE is either completely unmapped or completely mapped.

In terms of large folios, it is a different story. for example, a large
folio with 16 PTEs with CONT-PTE, we will have

1. unfolded CONT-PTE, eg. PTE0 present, PTE1-PTE15 swap entries

2. page faults on PTE1-PTE15 after try_to_unmap if we access them.

This is totally useless PF and can be avoided if we can try_to_unmap
properly at the beginning.

3. potential need to split a large folio afterwards. for example, MADV_PAGEOUT,
MADV_FREE might split it after finding it is not completely mapped.

For small folios, we don't have any concern on the above issues.

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>

Thanks
Barry

Powered by blists - more mailing lists