[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fd16b219-bc46-484a-8581-a21240440fa6@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 14:46:12 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: willy@...radead.org, sj@...nel.org, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
maskray@...gle.com, ziy@...dia.com, ryan.roberts@....com, 21cnbao@...il.com,
mhocko@...e.com, fengwei.yin@...el.com, zokeefe@...gle.com,
shy828301@...il.com, xiehuan09@...il.com, libang.li@...group.com,
wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, songmuchun@...edance.com, peterx@...hat.com,
minchan@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] mm/rmap: integrate PMD-mapped folio splitting into
pagewalk loop
On 21.05.24 06:02, Lance Yang wrote:
> In preparation for supporting try_to_unmap_one() to unmap PMD-mapped
> folios, start the pagewalk first, then call split_huge_pmd_address() to
> split the folio.
>
> Since TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD will no longer perform immediately, we might
> encounter a PMD-mapped THP missing the mlock in the VM_LOCKED range during
> the page walk. It’s probably necessary to mlock this THP to prevent it from
> being picked up during page reclaim.
>
> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Suggested-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
> ---
[...] again, sorry for the late review.
> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> index ddffa30c79fb..08a93347f283 100644
> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> @@ -1640,9 +1640,6 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> if (flags & TTU_SYNC)
> pvmw.flags = PVMW_SYNC;
>
> - if (flags & TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD)
> - split_huge_pmd_address(vma, address, false, folio);
> -
> /*
> * For THP, we have to assume the worse case ie pmd for invalidation.
> * For hugetlb, it could be much worse if we need to do pud
> @@ -1668,20 +1665,35 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
>
> while (page_vma_mapped_walk(&pvmw)) {
> - /* Unexpected PMD-mapped THP? */
> - VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!pvmw.pte, folio);
> -
> /*
> * If the folio is in an mlock()d vma, we must not swap it out.
> */
> if (!(flags & TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK) &&
> (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)) {
> /* Restore the mlock which got missed */
> - if (!folio_test_large(folio))
> + if (!folio_test_large(folio) ||
> + (!pvmw.pte && (flags & TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD)))
> mlock_vma_folio(folio, vma);
Can you elaborate why you think this would be required? If we would have
performed the split_huge_pmd_address() beforehand, we would still be
left with a large folio, no?
> goto walk_done_err;
> }
>
> + if (!pvmw.pte && (flags & TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD)) {
> + /*
> + * We temporarily have to drop the PTL and start once
> + * again from that now-PTE-mapped page table.
> + */
> + split_huge_pmd_locked(vma, range.start, pvmw.pmd, false,
> + folio);
Using range.start here is a bit weird. Wouldn't this be pvmw.address?
[did not check]
> + pvmw.pmd = NULL;
> + spin_unlock(pvmw.ptl);
> + pvmw.ptl = NULL;
Would we want a
page_vma_mapped_walk_restart() that is exactly for that purpose?
> + flags &= ~TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD;
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + /* Unexpected PMD-mapped THP? */
> + VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!pvmw.pte, folio);
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists