All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] mm: migration: fix migration of huge PMD shared pages
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:14:25 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180829181424.GB3784@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9209043d-3240-105b-72a3-b4cd30f1b1f1@oracle.com>

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:24:44AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 08/27/2018 06:46 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 09:46:45AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Fri 24-08-18 11:08:24, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >>> Here is an updated patch which does as you suggest above.
> >> [...]
> >>> @@ -1409,6 +1419,32 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >>>  		subpage = page - page_to_pfn(page) + pte_pfn(*pvmw.pte);
> >>>  		address = pvmw.address;
> >>>  
> >>> +		if (PageHuge(page)) {
> >>> +			if (huge_pmd_unshare(mm, &address, pvmw.pte)) {
> >>> +				/*
> >>> +				 * huge_pmd_unshare unmapped an entire PMD
> >>> +				 * page.  There is no way of knowing exactly
> >>> +				 * which PMDs may be cached for this mm, so
> >>> +				 * we must flush them all.  start/end were
> >>> +				 * already adjusted above to cover this range.
> >>> +				 */
> >>> +				flush_cache_range(vma, start, end);
> >>> +				flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end);
> >>> +				mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(mm, start, end);
> >>> +
> >>> +				/*
> >>> +				 * The ref count of the PMD page was dropped
> >>> +				 * which is part of the way map counting
> >>> +				 * is done for shared PMDs.  Return 'true'
> >>> +				 * here.  When there is no other sharing,
> >>> +				 * huge_pmd_unshare returns false and we will
> >>> +				 * unmap the actual page and drop map count
> >>> +				 * to zero.
> >>> +				 */
> >>> +				page_vma_mapped_walk_done(&pvmw);
> >>> +				break;
> >>> +			}
> >>
> >> This still calls into notifier while holding the ptl lock. Either I am
> >> missing something or the invalidation is broken in this loop (not also
> >> for other invalidations).
> > 
> > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range() is done with pt lock held only the start
> > and end versions need to happen outside pt lock.
> 
> Hi Jerome (and anyone else having good understanding of mmu notifier API),
> 
> Michal and I have been looking at backports to stable releases.  If you look
> at the v4.4 version of try_to_unmap_one(), it does not use the
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start/end interfaces. Rather, it uses the
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_page(), passing in the address of the page it
> unmapped.  This is done after releasing the ptl lock.  I'm not even sure if
> this works for huge pages, as it appears some THP supporting code was added
> to try_to_unmap_one() after v4.4.
> 
> But, we were wondering what mmu notifier interface to use in the case where
> try_to_unmap_one() unmaps a shared pmd huge page as addressed in the patch
> above.  In this case, a PUD sized area is effectively unmapped.  In the
> code/patch above we have the invalidate range (start and end as well) take
> the PUD sized area into account.
> 
> What would be the best mmu notifier interface to use where there are no
> start/end calls?
> Or, is the best solution to add the start/end calls as is done in later
> versions of the code?  If that is the suggestion, has there been any change
> in invalidate start/end semantics that we should take into account?

start/end would be the one to add, 4.4 seems broken in respect to THP
and mmu notification. Another solution is to fix user of mmu notifier,
they were only a handful back then. For instance properly adjust the
address to match first address covered by pmd or pud and passing down
correct page size to mmu_notifier_invalidate_page() would allow to fix
this easily.

This is ok because user of try_to_unmap_one() replace the pte/pmd/pud
with an invalid one (either poison, migration or swap) inside the
function. So anyone racing would synchronize on those special entry
hence why it is fine to delay mmu_notifier_invalidate_page() to after
dropping the page table lock.

Adding start/end might the solution with less code churn as you would
only need to change try_to_unmap_one().

Cheers,
Jerome

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] mm: migration: fix migration of huge PMD shared pages
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:14:25 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180829181424.GB3784@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9209043d-3240-105b-72a3-b4cd30f1b1f1@oracle.com>

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:24:44AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 08/27/2018 06:46 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 09:46:45AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Fri 24-08-18 11:08:24, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >>> Here is an updated patch which does as you suggest above.
> >> [...]
> >>> @@ -1409,6 +1419,32 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >>>  		subpage = page - page_to_pfn(page) + pte_pfn(*pvmw.pte);
> >>>  		address = pvmw.address;
> >>>  
> >>> +		if (PageHuge(page)) {
> >>> +			if (huge_pmd_unshare(mm, &address, pvmw.pte)) {
> >>> +				/*
> >>> +				 * huge_pmd_unshare unmapped an entire PMD
> >>> +				 * page.  There is no way of knowing exactly
> >>> +				 * which PMDs may be cached for this mm, so
> >>> +				 * we must flush them all.  start/end were
> >>> +				 * already adjusted above to cover this range.
> >>> +				 */
> >>> +				flush_cache_range(vma, start, end);
> >>> +				flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end);
> >>> +				mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(mm, start, end);
> >>> +
> >>> +				/*
> >>> +				 * The ref count of the PMD page was dropped
> >>> +				 * which is part of the way map counting
> >>> +				 * is done for shared PMDs.  Return 'true'
> >>> +				 * here.  When there is no other sharing,
> >>> +				 * huge_pmd_unshare returns false and we will
> >>> +				 * unmap the actual page and drop map count
> >>> +				 * to zero.
> >>> +				 */
> >>> +				page_vma_mapped_walk_done(&pvmw);
> >>> +				break;
> >>> +			}
> >>
> >> This still calls into notifier while holding the ptl lock. Either I am
> >> missing something or the invalidation is broken in this loop (not also
> >> for other invalidations).
> > 
> > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range() is done with pt lock held only the start
> > and end versions need to happen outside pt lock.
> 
> Hi Jérôme (and anyone else having good understanding of mmu notifier API),
> 
> Michal and I have been looking at backports to stable releases.  If you look
> at the v4.4 version of try_to_unmap_one(), it does not use the
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start/end interfaces. Rather, it uses the
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_page(), passing in the address of the page it
> unmapped.  This is done after releasing the ptl lock.  I'm not even sure if
> this works for huge pages, as it appears some THP supporting code was added
> to try_to_unmap_one() after v4.4.
> 
> But, we were wondering what mmu notifier interface to use in the case where
> try_to_unmap_one() unmaps a shared pmd huge page as addressed in the patch
> above.  In this case, a PUD sized area is effectively unmapped.  In the
> code/patch above we have the invalidate range (start and end as well) take
> the PUD sized area into account.
> 
> What would be the best mmu notifier interface to use where there are no
> start/end calls?
> Or, is the best solution to add the start/end calls as is done in later
> versions of the code?  If that is the suggestion, has there been any change
> in invalidate start/end semantics that we should take into account?

start/end would be the one to add, 4.4 seems broken in respect to THP
and mmu notification. Another solution is to fix user of mmu notifier,
they were only a handful back then. For instance properly adjust the
address to match first address covered by pmd or pud and passing down
correct page size to mmu_notifier_invalidate_page() would allow to fix
this easily.

This is ok because user of try_to_unmap_one() replace the pte/pmd/pud
with an invalid one (either poison, migration or swap) inside the
function. So anyone racing would synchronize on those special entry
hence why it is fine to delay mmu_notifier_invalidate_page() to after
dropping the page table lock.

Adding start/end might the solution with less code churn as you would
only need to change try_to_unmap_one().

Cheers,
Jérôme

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] mm: migration: fix migration of huge PMD shared pages
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:14:25 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180829181424.GB3784@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9209043d-3240-105b-72a3-b4cd30f1b1f1@oracle.com>

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:24:44AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 08/27/2018 06:46 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 09:46:45AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Fri 24-08-18 11:08:24, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >>> Here is an updated patch which does as you suggest above.
> >> [...]
> >>> @@ -1409,6 +1419,32 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >>>  		subpage = page - page_to_pfn(page) + pte_pfn(*pvmw.pte);
> >>>  		address = pvmw.address;
> >>>  
> >>> +		if (PageHuge(page)) {
> >>> +			if (huge_pmd_unshare(mm, &address, pvmw.pte)) {
> >>> +				/*
> >>> +				 * huge_pmd_unshare unmapped an entire PMD
> >>> +				 * page.  There is no way of knowing exactly
> >>> +				 * which PMDs may be cached for this mm, so
> >>> +				 * we must flush them all.  start/end were
> >>> +				 * already adjusted above to cover this range.
> >>> +				 */
> >>> +				flush_cache_range(vma, start, end);
> >>> +				flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end);
> >>> +				mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(mm, start, end);
> >>> +
> >>> +				/*
> >>> +				 * The ref count of the PMD page was dropped
> >>> +				 * which is part of the way map counting
> >>> +				 * is done for shared PMDs.  Return 'true'
> >>> +				 * here.  When there is no other sharing,
> >>> +				 * huge_pmd_unshare returns false and we will
> >>> +				 * unmap the actual page and drop map count
> >>> +				 * to zero.
> >>> +				 */
> >>> +				page_vma_mapped_walk_done(&pvmw);
> >>> +				break;
> >>> +			}
> >>
> >> This still calls into notifier while holding the ptl lock. Either I am
> >> missing something or the invalidation is broken in this loop (not also
> >> for other invalidations).
> > 
> > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range() is done with pt lock held only the start
> > and end versions need to happen outside pt lock.
> 
> Hi J�r�me (and anyone else having good understanding of mmu notifier API),
> 
> Michal and I have been looking at backports to stable releases.  If you look
> at the v4.4 version of try_to_unmap_one(), it does not use the
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start/end interfaces. Rather, it uses the
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_page(), passing in the address of the page it
> unmapped.  This is done after releasing the ptl lock.  I'm not even sure if
> this works for huge pages, as it appears some THP supporting code was added
> to try_to_unmap_one() after v4.4.
> 
> But, we were wondering what mmu notifier interface to use in the case where
> try_to_unmap_one() unmaps a shared pmd huge page as addressed in the patch
> above.  In this case, a PUD sized area is effectively unmapped.  In the
> code/patch above we have the invalidate range (start and end as well) take
> the PUD sized area into account.
> 
> What would be the best mmu notifier interface to use where there are no
> start/end calls?
> Or, is the best solution to add the start/end calls as is done in later
> versions of the code?  If that is the suggestion, has there been any change
> in invalidate start/end semantics that we should take into account?

start/end would be the one to add, 4.4 seems broken in respect to THP
and mmu notification. Another solution is to fix user of mmu notifier,
they were only a handful back then. For instance properly adjust the
address to match first address covered by pmd or pud and passing down
correct page size to mmu_notifier_invalidate_page() would allow to fix
this easily.

This is ok because user of try_to_unmap_one() replace the pte/pmd/pud
with an invalid one (either poison, migration or swap) inside the
function. So anyone racing would synchronize on those special entry
hence why it is fine to delay mmu_notifier_invalidate_page() to after
dropping the page table lock.

Adding start/end might the solution with less code churn as you would
only need to change try_to_unmap_one().

Cheers,
J�r�me

  reply	other threads:[~2018-08-29 18:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-08-23 20:59 [PATCH v6 0/2] huge_pmd_unshare migration and flushing Mike Kravetz
2018-08-23 20:59 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] mm: migration: fix migration of huge PMD shared pages Mike Kravetz
2018-08-24  2:59   ` Naoya Horiguchi
2018-08-24  8:41   ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-24 18:08     ` Mike Kravetz
2018-08-27  7:46       ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-27 13:46         ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-27 13:46           ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-27 13:46           ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-27 19:09           ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-29 17:24           ` Mike Kravetz
2018-08-29 17:24             ` Mike Kravetz
2018-08-29 18:14             ` Jerome Glisse [this message]
2018-08-29 18:14               ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-29 18:14               ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-29 18:39               ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-29 21:11                 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-29 21:11                   ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-29 21:11                   ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-30  0:40                   ` Mike Kravetz
2018-08-30 10:56                   ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-30 10:56                     ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-30 10:56                     ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-30 14:08                     ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-30 14:08                       ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-30 14:08                       ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-30 16:19                       ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-30 16:19                         ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-30 16:19                         ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-30 16:57                         ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-30 16:57                           ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-30 18:05                           ` Mike Kravetz
2018-08-30 18:05                             ` Mike Kravetz
2018-08-30 18:39                             ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-30 18:39                               ` Jerome Glisse
2018-08-30 18:39                               ` Jerome Glisse
2018-09-03  5:56                               ` Michal Hocko
2018-09-04 14:00                                 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-09-04 14:00                                   ` Jerome Glisse
2018-09-04 14:00                                   ` Jerome Glisse
2018-09-04 17:55                                   ` Mike Kravetz
2018-09-04 17:55                                     ` Mike Kravetz
2018-09-05  6:57                                   ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-27 16:42         ` Mike Kravetz
2018-08-27 19:11       ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-24  9:25   ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-23 20:59 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] hugetlb: take PMD sharing into account when flushing tlb/caches Mike Kravetz
2018-08-24  3:07   ` Naoya Horiguchi
2018-08-24 11:35 ` [PATCH v6 0/2] huge_pmd_unshare migration and flushing Kirill A. Shutemov

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=20180829181424.GB3784@redhat.com \
    --to=jglisse@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
    --cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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.