Message-ID: <0d049ec4-ab39-441b-8560-5613f3527473@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 11:05:04 +0530
From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 shuah@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org
Cc: ryan.roberts@....com, anshuman.khandual@....com, catalin.marinas@....com,
 cl@...two.org, vbabka@...e.cz, mhocko@...e.com, apopple@...dia.com,
 osalvador@...e.de, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, will@...nel.org, baohua@...nel.org,
 ioworker0@...il.com, gshan@...hat.com, mark.rutland@....com,
 kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, hughd@...gle.com, aneesh.kumar@...nel.org,
 yang@...amperecomputing.com, peterx@...hat.com, broonie@...nel.org,
 mgorman@...hsingularity.net, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, ying.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Retry migration earlier upon refcount mismatch


On 8/11/24 14:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 11.08.24 08:06, Dev Jain wrote:
>>
>> On 8/11/24 00:22, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 10.08.24 20:42, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8/9/24 19:17, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 09.08.24 12:31, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>>>> As already being done in __migrate_folio(), wherein we backoff if 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> folio refcount is wrong, make this check during the unmapping phase,
>>>>>> upon
>>>>>> the failure of which, the original state of the PTEs will be 
>>>>>> restored
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the folio lock will be dropped via migrate_folio_undo_src(), any
>>>>>> racing
>>>>>> thread will make progress and migration will be retried.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     mm/migrate.c | 9 +++++++++
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
>>>>>> index e7296c0fb5d5..477acf996951 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/migrate.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
>>>>>> @@ -1250,6 +1250,15 @@ static int migrate_folio_unmap(new_folio_t
>>>>>> get_new_folio,
>>>>>>         }
>>>>>>           if (!folio_mapped(src)) {
>>>>>> +        /*
>>>>>> +         * Someone may have changed the refcount and maybe sleeping
>>>>>> +         * on the folio lock. In case of refcount mismatch, bail 
>>>>>> out,
>>>>>> +         * let the system make progress and retry.
>>>>>> +         */
>>>>>> +        struct address_space *mapping = folio_mapping(src);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +        if (folio_ref_count(src) != folio_expected_refs(mapping,
>>>>>> src))
>>>>>> +            goto out;
>>>>>
>>>>> This really seems to be the latest point where we can "easily" back
>>>>> off and unlock the source folio -- in this function :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if we should be smarter in the migrate_pages_batch() loop
>>>>> when we start the actual migrations via migrate_folio_move(): if we
>>>>> detect that a folio has unexpected references *and* it has waiters
>>>>> (PG_waiters), back off then and retry the folio later. If it only has
>>>>> unexpected references, just keep retrying: no waiters -> nobody is
>>>>> waiting for the lock to make progress.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The patch currently retries migration irrespective of the reason of
>>>> refcount change.
>>>>
>>>> If you are suggesting that, break the retrying according to two
>>>> conditions:
>>>
>>> That's not what I am suggesting ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This really seems to be the latest point where we can "easily" back
>>>>> off and unlock the source folio -- in this function :)
>>>>> For example, when migrate_folio_move() fails with -EAGAIN, check if
>>>>> there are waiters (PG_waiter?) and undo+unlock to try again later.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Currently, on -EAGAIN, migrate_folio_move() returns without undoing 
>>>> src
>>>> and dst; even if we were to fall
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I am wondering if we should detect here if there are waiters and undo
>>> src+dst.
>>
>> After undoing src+dst, which restores the PTEs, how are you going to 
>> set the
>>
>> PTEs to migration again? That is being done through 
>> migrate_folio_unmap(),
>>
>> and the loops of _unmap() and _move() are different. Or am I missing
>> something...
>
> Again, no expert on the code, but it would mean that if we detect that 
> there are waiters, we would undo src+dst and add them to ret_folios, 
> similar to what we do in "Cleanup remaining folios" at the end of 
> migrate_pages_batch()?
>
> So instead of retrying migration of that folio, just give it up 
> immediately and retry again later.
>
> Of course, this means that (without further modifications to that 
> function), we would leave retrying these folios to the caller, such as 
> in migrate_pages_sync(), where we move ret_folios to the tail of 
> "folios" and retry migration.

So IIUC, you are saying to change the return value in 
__folio_migrate_mapping(), so that when move_to_new_folio() fails

in migrate_folio_move(), we end up in the retrying loop of _sync() which 
calls _batch() in synchronous mode. Here, we

will have to make a change to decide how much we want to retry?

>
>
> Maybe one would want to optimize that retry logic with such 
> "temporarily failed because someone else has to make progress for us 
> to make progress and free up a page reference" case. These are 
> different to the typical "speculative" references that we try to 
> handle via the existing retry magic.
>
> Please let me know if I am missing something fundamental.
>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists