[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d428013e-6f68-416d-befa-a5a8bab0b566@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 10:31:39 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: migration :shared anonymous migration test is failing
On 2024/12/19 20:47, Donet Tom wrote:
> The migration selftest is currently failing for shared anonymous
> mappings due to a race condition.
>
> During migration, the source folio's PTE is unmapped by nuking the
> PTE, flushing the TLB,and then marking the page for migration
> (by creating the swap entries). The issue arises when, immediately
> after the PTE is nuked and the TLB is flushed, but before the page
> is marked for migration, another thread accesses the page. This
> triggers a page fault, and the page fault handler invokes
> do_pte_missing() instead of do_swap_page(), as the page is not yet
> marked for migration.
>
> In the fault handling path, do_pte_missing() calls __do_fault()
> ->shmem_fault() -> shmem_get_folio_gfp() -> filemap_get_entry().
> This eventually calls folio_try_get(), incrementing the reference
> count of the folio undergoing migration. The thread then blocks
> on folio_lock(), as the migration path holds the lock. This
> results in the migration failing in __migrate_folio(), which expects
> the folio's reference count to be 2. However, the reference count is
> incremented by the fault handler, leading to the failure.
>
> The issue arises because, after nuking the PTE and before marking the
> page for migration, the page is accessed. To address this, we have
> updated the logic to first nuke the PTE, then mark the page for
> migration, and only then flush the TLB. With this patch, If the page is
> accessed immediately after nuking the PTE, the TLB entry is still
> valid, so no fault occurs. After marking the page for migration,
IMO, I don't think this assumption is correct. At this point, the TLB
entry might also be evicted, so a page fault could still occur. It's
just a matter of probability.
Additionally, IIUC, if another thread is accessing the shmem folio
causing the migration to fail, I think this is expected, and migration
failure is not a vital issue?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists