From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To: Zi Yan <zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm/hmm: properly handle migration pmd
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 12:06:03 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180828160602.GB4029@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44C89854-FE83-492F-B6BB-CF54B77233CF@cs.rutgers.edu>
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:54:33AM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On 28 Aug 2018, at 11:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Tue 28-08-18 17:42:06, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Tue 28-08-18 11:36:59, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:24:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>> On Fri 24-08-18 20:05:46, Zi Yan wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>>> + if (!pmd_present(pmd)) {
> >>>>>> + swp_entry_t entry = pmd_to_swp_entry(pmd);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + if (is_migration_entry(entry)) {
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think you should check thp_migration_supported() here, since PMD migration is only enabled in x86_64 systems.
> >>>>> Other architectures should treat PMD migration entries as bad.
> >>>>
> >>>> How can we have a migration pmd entry when the migration is not
> >>>> supported?
> >>>
> >>> Not sure i follow here, migration can happen anywhere (assuming
> >>> that something like compaction is active or numa or ...). So this
> >>> code can face pmd migration entry on architecture that support
> >>> it. What is missing here is thp_migration_supported() call to
> >>> protect the is_migration_entry() to avoid false positive on arch
> >>> which do not support thp migration.
> >>
> >> I mean that architectures which do not support THP migration shouldn't
> >> ever see any migration entry. So is_migration_entry should be always
> >> false. Or do I miss something?
> >
> > And just to be clear. thp_migration_supported should be checked only
> > when we actually _do_ the migration or evaluate migratability of the
> > page. We definitely do want to sprinkle this check to all places where
> > is_migration_entry is checked.
>
> is_migration_entry() is a general check for swp_entry_t, so it can return
> true even if THP migration is not enabled. is_pmd_migration_entry() always
> returns false when THP migration is not enabled.
>
> So the code can be changed in two ways, either replacing is_migration_entry()
> with is_pmd_migration_entry() or adding thp_migration_supported() check
> like Jerome did.
>
> Does this clarify your question?
>
Well looking back at code is_migration_entry() will return false on arch
which do not have thp migration because pmd_to_swp_entry() will return
swp_entry(0,0) which is can not be a valid migration entry.
Maybe using is_pmd_migration_entry() would be better here ? It seems
that is_pmd_migration_entry() is more common then the open coded
thp_migration_supported() && is_migration_entry()
Cheers,
Jerome
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To: Zi Yan <zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm/hmm: properly handle migration pmd
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 12:06:03 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180828160602.GB4029@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44C89854-FE83-492F-B6BB-CF54B77233CF@cs.rutgers.edu>
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:54:33AM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On 28 Aug 2018, at 11:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Tue 28-08-18 17:42:06, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Tue 28-08-18 11:36:59, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:24:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>> On Fri 24-08-18 20:05:46, Zi Yan wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>>> + if (!pmd_present(pmd)) {
> >>>>>> + swp_entry_t entry = pmd_to_swp_entry(pmd);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + if (is_migration_entry(entry)) {
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think you should check thp_migration_supported() here, since PMD migration is only enabled in x86_64 systems.
> >>>>> Other architectures should treat PMD migration entries as bad.
> >>>>
> >>>> How can we have a migration pmd entry when the migration is not
> >>>> supported?
> >>>
> >>> Not sure i follow here, migration can happen anywhere (assuming
> >>> that something like compaction is active or numa or ...). So this
> >>> code can face pmd migration entry on architecture that support
> >>> it. What is missing here is thp_migration_supported() call to
> >>> protect the is_migration_entry() to avoid false positive on arch
> >>> which do not support thp migration.
> >>
> >> I mean that architectures which do not support THP migration shouldn't
> >> ever see any migration entry. So is_migration_entry should be always
> >> false. Or do I miss something?
> >
> > And just to be clear. thp_migration_supported should be checked only
> > when we actually _do_ the migration or evaluate migratability of the
> > page. We definitely do want to sprinkle this check to all places where
> > is_migration_entry is checked.
>
> is_migration_entry() is a general check for swp_entry_t, so it can return
> true even if THP migration is not enabled. is_pmd_migration_entry() always
> returns false when THP migration is not enabled.
>
> So the code can be changed in two ways, either replacing is_migration_entry()
> with is_pmd_migration_entry() or adding thp_migration_supported() check
> like Jerome did.
>
> Does this clarify your question?
>
Well looking back at code is_migration_entry() will return false on arch
which do not have thp migration because pmd_to_swp_entry() will return
swp_entry(0,0) which is can not be a valid migration entry.
Maybe using is_pmd_migration_entry() would be better here ? It seems
that is_pmd_migration_entry() is more common then the open coded
thp_migration_supported() && is_migration_entry()
Cheers,
Jérôme
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-28 16:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-24 19:25 [PATCH 0/7] HMM updates, improvements and fixes jglisse
2018-08-24 19:25 ` jglisse
2018-08-24 19:25 ` [PATCH 1/7] mm/hmm: fix utf8 jglisse
2018-08-24 19:25 ` jglisse
2018-08-24 19:25 ` [PATCH 2/7] mm/rmap: map_pte() was not handling private ZONE_DEVICE page properly jglisse
2018-08-24 19:25 ` jglisse
2018-08-30 14:05 ` Balbir Singh
2018-08-30 14:05 ` Balbir Singh
2018-08-30 14:05 ` Balbir Singh
2018-08-30 14:34 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-30 14:34 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-30 14:34 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-30 14:41 ` [PATCH 3/7] mm/rmap: map_pte() was not handling private ZONE_DEVICE page properly v2 jglisse
2018-08-30 14:41 ` jglisse
2018-08-31 9:27 ` Balbir Singh
2018-08-31 9:27 ` Balbir Singh
2018-08-31 9:27 ` Balbir Singh
2018-08-31 16:19 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-31 16:19 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-31 16:19 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-09-02 6:58 ` Balbir Singh
2018-09-02 6:58 ` Balbir Singh
2018-09-02 6:58 ` Balbir Singh
2018-08-24 19:25 ` [PATCH 3/7] mm/hmm: fix race between hmm_mirror_unregister() and mmu_notifier callback jglisse
2018-08-24 19:25 ` jglisse
2018-08-30 14:14 ` Balbir Singh
2018-08-30 14:14 ` Balbir Singh
2018-08-30 14:14 ` Balbir Singh
2018-08-24 19:25 ` [PATCH 4/7] mm/hmm: properly handle migration pmd jglisse
2018-08-24 19:25 ` jglisse
2018-08-25 0:05 ` Zi Yan
2018-08-28 0:35 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-28 0:35 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-28 15:24 ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-28 15:36 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-28 15:36 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-28 15:42 ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-28 15:45 ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-28 15:54 ` Zi Yan
2018-08-28 16:06 ` Jerome Glisse [this message]
2018-08-28 16:06 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-28 16:10 ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-29 17:17 ` [PATCH 4/7] mm/hmm: properly handle migration pmd v2 jglisse
2018-08-29 17:17 ` jglisse
2018-08-24 19:25 ` [PATCH 5/7] mm/hmm: use a structure for update callback parameters jglisse
2018-08-24 19:25 ` jglisse
2018-08-30 23:11 ` Balbir Singh
2018-08-30 23:11 ` Balbir Singh
2018-08-31 16:12 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-31 16:12 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-24 19:25 ` [PATCH 6/7] mm/hmm: invalidate device page table at start of invalidation jglisse
2018-08-24 19:25 ` jglisse
2018-08-24 19:25 ` [PATCH 7/7] mm/hmm: proper support for blockable mmu_notifier jglisse
2018-08-24 19:25 ` jglisse
2018-10-12 18:15 ` [PATCH 0/7] HMM updates, improvements and fixes Jerome Glisse
2018-10-12 18:15 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-10-12 21:12 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180828160602.GB4029@redhat.com \
--to=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=rcampbell@nvidia.com \
--cc=zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.