Message-ID: <c40de4d7-e37e-4d2f-bd7a-a2a5497a2419@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 17:01:58 +0530
From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, david@...hat.com,
 willy@...radead.org, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Retry migration earlier upon refcount mismatch


On 8/13/24 12:52, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 8/13/24 10:30, Dev Jain wrote:
>>
>> On 8/12/24 17:38, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/12/24 13:01, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>> Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/12/24 11:45, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>>> Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/12/24 11:04, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi, Dev,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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;
>>>>>>>>>             __migrate_folio_record(dst, old_page_state, 
>>>>>>>>> anon_vma);
>>>>>>>>>             return MIGRATEPAGE_UNMAP;
>>>>>>>>>         }
>>>>>>>> Do you have some test results for this?  For example, after 
>>>>>>>> applying the
>>>>>>>> patch, the migration success rate increased XX%, etc.
>>>>>>> I'll get back to you on this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My understanding for this issue is that the migration success 
>>>>>>>> rate can
>>>>>>>> increase if we undo all changes before retrying. This is the 
>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>> behavior for sync migration, but not for async migration.  If 
>>>>>>>> so, we can
>>>>>>>> use migrate_pages_sync() for async migration too to increase 
>>>>>>>> success
>>>>>>>> rate?  Of course, we need to change the function name and 
>>>>>>>> comments.
>>>>>>> As per my understanding, this is not the current behaviour for sync
>>>>>>> migration. After successful unmapping, we fail in 
>>>>>>> migrate_folio_move()
>>>>>>> with -EAGAIN, we do not call undo src+dst (rendering the loop 
>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>> migrate_folio_move() futile), we do not push the failed folio 
>>>>>>> onto the
>>>>>>> ret_folios list, therefore, in _sync(), _batch() is never tried 
>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>> In migrate_pages_sync(), migrate_pages_batch(,MIGRATE_ASYNC) will be
>>>>>> called first, if failed, the folio will be restored to the original
>>>>>> state (unlocked).  Then migrate_pages_batch(,_SYNC*) is called 
>>>>>> again.
>>>>>> So, we unlock once.  If it's necessary, we can unlock more times via
>>>>>> another level of loop.
>>>>> Yes, that's my point. We need to undo src+dst and retry.
>>>> For sync migration, we undo src+dst and retry now, but only once.  You
>>>> have shown that more retrying increases success rate.
>>>>
>>>>> We will have
>>>>> to decide where we want this retrying to be; do we want to change the
>>>>> return value, end up in the while loop wrapped around _sync(), and 
>>>>> retry
>>>>> there by adding another level of loop, or do we want to make use 
>>>>> of the
>>>>> existing retry loops, one of which is wrapped around _unmap(); the 
>>>>> latter
>>>>> is my approach. The utility I see for the former approach is that, 
>>>>> in case
>>>>> of a large number of page migrations (which should usually be the 
>>>>> case),
>>>>> we are giving more time for the folio to get retried. The latter 
>>>>> does not
>>>>> give much time and discards the folio if it did not succeed under 
>>>>> 7 times.
>>>> Because it's a race, I guess that most folios will be migrated
>>>> successfully in the first pass.
>>>>
>>>> My concerns of your method are that it deal with just one case
>>>> specially.  While retrying after undoing all appears more general.
>>>
>>>
>>> Makes sense. Also, please ignore my "change the return value"
>>> thing, I got confused between unmap_folios, ret_folios, etc.
>>> Now I think I understood what the lists are doing :)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it's really important to retry after undoing all, we can either
>>>> convert two retying loops of migrate_pages_batch() into one loop, or
>>>> remove retry loop in migrate_pages_batch() and retry in its caller
>>>> instead.
>>>
>>> And if I implemented this correctly, the following makes the test
>>> pass always:
>>> https://www.codedump.xyz/diff/Zrn7EdxzNXmXyNXe
>>
>>
>> Okay, I did mess up with the implementation, leading to a false
>> positive. Let me try again :)
>
>
> Hopefully this should do the job:
> https://www.codedump.xyz/diff/ZrsIV8JSOPYx5V_u
>
> But the result is worse than the patch proposed; I rarely hit
> a 3 digit number of successes of move_pages(). But, on a
> base kernel without any changes, when I apply David's
> suggestion to change the test, if I choose 7 as the number
> of retries (= NR_MAX_MIGRATE_SYNC_RETRY) in the test, I
> can touch even 4 digits. I am puzzled.
> We can also try merging the for loops of unmap and move...


If people are okay with this change, I guess I can send it as
a v2? I concur with your assessment that my initial approach
is solving a specific case; the above approach does give me
a slight improvement on arm64 and should be an improvement
in general, since it makes sense to defer retrying the failed folio
as much as we can.

>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists