Message-ID: <CAHbLzkqEhbw89HMh7h-r6M1xM5vw7bUZDNO7KEgPyaguO32d-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 11:36:15 -0700
From: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>, Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, 
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, 
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, 
	Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>, 
	Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, 
	Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH hotfix 1/2] mm/thp: fix deferred split queue not partially_mapped

On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 8:32 AM Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com> wrote:
>
> On 25 Oct 2024, at 1:41, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, Zi Yan wrote:
> >> On 24 Oct 2024, at 0:10, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >>
> >>> The new unlocked list_del_init() in deferred_split_scan() is buggy.
> >>> I gave bad advice, it looks plausible since that's a local on-stack
> >>> list, but the fact is that it can race with a third party freeing or
> >>> migrating the preceding folio (properly unqueueing it with refcount 0
> >>> while holding split_queue_lock), thereby corrupting the list linkage.
> >>>
> >>> The obvious answer would be to take split_queue_lock there: but it has
> >>> a long history of contention, so I'm reluctant to add to that. Instead,
> >>> make sure that there is always one safe (raised refcount) folio before,
> >>> by delaying its folio_put().  (And of course I was wrong to suggest
> >>> updating split_queue_len without the lock: leave that until the splice.)
> >>
> >> I feel like this is not the right approach, since it breaks the existing
> >> condition of changing folio->_deferred_list, namely taking
> >> ds_queue->split_queue_lock for serialization. The contention might not be
> >> as high as you think, since if a folio were split, the split_queue_lock
> >> needed to be taken during split anyway. So the worse case is the same
> >> as all folios are split. Do you see significant perf degradation due to
> >> taking the lock when doing list_del_init()?
> >>
> >> I am afraid if we take this route, we might hit hard-to-debug bugs
> >> in the future when someone touches the code.
> >
> > You have a good point: I am adding another element of trickiness
> > to that already-tricky local-but-not-quite list - which has tripped
> > us up a few times in the past.
> >
> > I do still feel that this solution is right in the spirit of that list;
> > but I've certainly not done any performance measurement to justify it,
> > nor would I ever trust my skill to do so.  I just tried to solve the
> > corruptions in what I thought was the best way.
> >
> > (To be honest, I found this solution to the corruptions first, and thought
> > the bug went back to the original implemention: that its put_page() at the
> > end of the loop was premature all along.  It was only when writing the
> > commit message two days ago, that I came to realize that even put_page()
> > or folio_put() would be safely using the lock to unqueue: that it is only
> > this new list_del_init() which is the exception which introduces the bug.)
> >
> > Looking at vmstats, I'm coming to believe that the performance advantage
> > of this way is likely to be in the noise: that mTHPs alone, and the
> > !partially_mapped case on top, are greatly increasing the split_deferred
> > stats: and may give rise to renewed complaints of lock contention, with
> > or without this optimization.
> >
> > While I still prefer to stick with what's posted and most tested, I am
> > giving the locked version a run overnight.  Thanks a lot for the reviews
> > and acks everyone: at present Zi Yan is in the minority preferring a
> > locked version, but please feel free to change your vote if you wish.
>
> Thank you a lot for taking the time to check the locked version. Looking
> forward to the result. BTW, I am not going to block this patch since it
> fixes the bug.
>
> The tricky part in deferred_list_scan() is always the use of
> folio->_deferred_list without taking split_queue_lock. I am thinking about
> use folio_batch to store the out-of-split_queue folios, so that _deferred_list
> will not be touched when these folios are tried to be split. Basically,
>
> 1. loop through split_queue and move folios to a folio_batch until the
>    folio_batch is full;
> 2. loop through the folio_batch to try to split each folio;
> 3. move the remaining folios back to split_queue.
>
> With this approach, split_queue_lock might be taken more if there are
> more than 31 (folio_batch max size) folios on split_queue and split_queue_lock
> will be held longer in step 3, since the remaining folios need to be
> added back to split_queue one by one instead of a single list splice.

IMHO, the folio_batch approach is worth trying. The deferred list lock
is just held when deleting folio from deferred list and updating the
list len. Re-acquiring the lock every 31 folios seems not very bad. Of
course, some benchmark is needed.

The other subtle thing is folio->_deferred_list is reused when the
folio is moved to the local on-stack list. And some
list_empty(deferred_list) checks return true even though the folio is
actually on the local on-stack list. Some code may depend on or
inadvertently depend on this behavior. Using folio_batch may break
some assumptions, but depending on this subtle behavior is definitely
not reliable IMHO.

>
> Let me know your thoughts. I can look into this if this approach sounds
> promising. Thanks.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Yan, Zi

Powered by blists - more mailing lists