From: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
zhongjiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [Question] Mlocked count will not be decreased
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 18:49:41 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <59256545.9010608@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <93f1b063-6288-d109-117d-d3c1cf152a8e@suse.cz>
On 2017/5/24 18:32, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 05/24/2017 10:32 AM, Yisheng Xie wrote:
>> Hi Kefengi 1/4 ?
>> Could you please try this patch.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Yisheng Xie
>> -------------
>> From a70ae975756e8e97a28d49117ab25684da631689 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
>> Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:01:24 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] mlock: fix mlock count can not decrease in race condition
>>
>> Kefeng reported that when run the follow test the mlock count in meminfo
>> cannot be decreased:
>> [1] testcase
>> linux:~ # cat test_mlockal
>> grep Mlocked /proc/meminfo
>> for j in `seq 0 10`
>> do
>> for i in `seq 4 15`
>> do
>> ./p_mlockall >> log &
>> done
>> sleep 0.2
>> done
>> sleep 5 # wait some time to let mlock decrease
>> grep Mlocked /proc/meminfo
>>
>> linux:~ # cat p_mlockall.c
>> #include <sys/mman.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> #define SPACE_LEN 4096
>>
>> int main(int argc, char ** argv)
>> {
>> int ret;
>> void *adr = malloc(SPACE_LEN);
>> if (!adr)
>> return -1;
>>
>> ret = mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE);
>> printf("mlcokall ret = %d\n", ret);
>>
>> ret = munlockall();
>> printf("munlcokall ret = %d\n", ret);
>>
>> free(adr);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> When __munlock_pagevec, we ClearPageMlock but isolation_failed in race
>> condition, and we do not count these page into delta_munlocked, which cause mlock
>
> Race condition with what? Who else would isolate our pages?
>
>> counter incorrect for we had Clear the PageMlock and cannot count down
>> the number in the feture.
>>
>> Fix it by count the number of page whoes PageMlock flag is cleared.
>>
>> Reported-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
>
> Weird, I can reproduce the issue on my desktop's 4.11 distro kernel, but
> not in qemu and small kernel build, for some reason. So I couldn't test
> the patch yet. But it's true that before 7225522bb429 ("mm: munlock:
> batch non-THP page isolation and munlock+putback using pagevec") we
> decreased NR_MLOCK for each pages that passed TestClearPageMlocked(),
> and that unintentionally changed with my patch. There should be a Fixes:
> tag for that.
>
Hi Vlastimil,
Why the page has marked Mlocked, but not in lru list?
if (TestClearPageMlocked(page)) {
/*
* We already have pin from follow_page_mask()
* so we can spare the get_page() here.
*/
if (__munlock_isolate_lru_page(page, false))
continue;
else
__munlock_isolation_failed(page); // How this happened?
}
Thanks,
Xishi Qiu
>> ---
>> mm/mlock.c | 7 ++++---
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/mlock.c b/mm/mlock.c
>> index c483c5c..71ba5cf 100644
>> --- a/mm/mlock.c
>> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
>> @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ static void __munlock_pagevec(struct pagevec *pvec, struct zone *zone)
>> {
>> int i;
>> int nr = pagevec_count(pvec);
>> - int delta_munlocked;
>> + int munlocked = 0;
>> struct pagevec pvec_putback;
>> int pgrescued = 0;
>>
>> @@ -296,6 +296,7 @@ static void __munlock_pagevec(struct pagevec *pvec, struct zone *zone)
>> struct page *page = pvec->pages[i];
>>
>> if (TestClearPageMlocked(page)) {
>> + munlocked --;
>> /*
>> * We already have pin from follow_page_mask()
>> * so we can spare the get_page() here.
>> @@ -315,8 +316,8 @@ static void __munlock_pagevec(struct pagevec *pvec, struct zone *zone)
>> pagevec_add(&pvec_putback, pvec->pages[i]);
>> pvec->pages[i] = NULL;
>> }
>> - delta_munlocked = -nr + pagevec_count(&pvec_putback);
>> - __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_MLOCK, delta_munlocked);
>> + if (munlocked)
>
> You don't have to if () this, it should be very rare that munlocked will
> be 0, and the code works fine even if it is.
>
>> + __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_MLOCK, munlocked);
>> spin_unlock_irq(zone_lru_lock(zone));
>>
>> /* Now we can release pins of pages that we are not munlocking */
>>
>
>
> .
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
zhongjiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [Question] Mlocked count will not be decreased
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 18:49:41 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <59256545.9010608@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <93f1b063-6288-d109-117d-d3c1cf152a8e@suse.cz>
On 2017/5/24 18:32, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 05/24/2017 10:32 AM, Yisheng Xie wrote:
>> Hi Kefeng,
>> Could you please try this patch.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Yisheng Xie
>> -------------
>> From a70ae975756e8e97a28d49117ab25684da631689 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
>> Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:01:24 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] mlock: fix mlock count can not decrease in race condition
>>
>> Kefeng reported that when run the follow test the mlock count in meminfo
>> cannot be decreased:
>> [1] testcase
>> linux:~ # cat test_mlockal
>> grep Mlocked /proc/meminfo
>> for j in `seq 0 10`
>> do
>> for i in `seq 4 15`
>> do
>> ./p_mlockall >> log &
>> done
>> sleep 0.2
>> done
>> sleep 5 # wait some time to let mlock decrease
>> grep Mlocked /proc/meminfo
>>
>> linux:~ # cat p_mlockall.c
>> #include <sys/mman.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> #define SPACE_LEN 4096
>>
>> int main(int argc, char ** argv)
>> {
>> int ret;
>> void *adr = malloc(SPACE_LEN);
>> if (!adr)
>> return -1;
>>
>> ret = mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE);
>> printf("mlcokall ret = %d\n", ret);
>>
>> ret = munlockall();
>> printf("munlcokall ret = %d\n", ret);
>>
>> free(adr);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> When __munlock_pagevec, we ClearPageMlock but isolation_failed in race
>> condition, and we do not count these page into delta_munlocked, which cause mlock
>
> Race condition with what? Who else would isolate our pages?
>
>> counter incorrect for we had Clear the PageMlock and cannot count down
>> the number in the feture.
>>
>> Fix it by count the number of page whoes PageMlock flag is cleared.
>>
>> Reported-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
>
> Weird, I can reproduce the issue on my desktop's 4.11 distro kernel, but
> not in qemu and small kernel build, for some reason. So I couldn't test
> the patch yet. But it's true that before 7225522bb429 ("mm: munlock:
> batch non-THP page isolation and munlock+putback using pagevec") we
> decreased NR_MLOCK for each pages that passed TestClearPageMlocked(),
> and that unintentionally changed with my patch. There should be a Fixes:
> tag for that.
>
Hi Vlastimil,
Why the page has marked Mlocked, but not in lru list?
if (TestClearPageMlocked(page)) {
/*
* We already have pin from follow_page_mask()
* so we can spare the get_page() here.
*/
if (__munlock_isolate_lru_page(page, false))
continue;
else
__munlock_isolation_failed(page); // How this happened?
}
Thanks,
Xishi Qiu
>> ---
>> mm/mlock.c | 7 ++++---
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/mlock.c b/mm/mlock.c
>> index c483c5c..71ba5cf 100644
>> --- a/mm/mlock.c
>> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
>> @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ static void __munlock_pagevec(struct pagevec *pvec, struct zone *zone)
>> {
>> int i;
>> int nr = pagevec_count(pvec);
>> - int delta_munlocked;
>> + int munlocked = 0;
>> struct pagevec pvec_putback;
>> int pgrescued = 0;
>>
>> @@ -296,6 +296,7 @@ static void __munlock_pagevec(struct pagevec *pvec, struct zone *zone)
>> struct page *page = pvec->pages[i];
>>
>> if (TestClearPageMlocked(page)) {
>> + munlocked --;
>> /*
>> * We already have pin from follow_page_mask()
>> * so we can spare the get_page() here.
>> @@ -315,8 +316,8 @@ static void __munlock_pagevec(struct pagevec *pvec, struct zone *zone)
>> pagevec_add(&pvec_putback, pvec->pages[i]);
>> pvec->pages[i] = NULL;
>> }
>> - delta_munlocked = -nr + pagevec_count(&pvec_putback);
>> - __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_MLOCK, delta_munlocked);
>> + if (munlocked)
>
> You don't have to if () this, it should be very rare that munlocked will
> be 0, and the code works fine even if it is.
>
>> + __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_MLOCK, munlocked);
>> spin_unlock_irq(zone_lru_lock(zone));
>>
>> /* Now we can release pins of pages that we are not munlocking */
>>
>
>
> .
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-24 10:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-23 14:41 [Question] Mlocked count will not be decreased Kefeng Wang
2017-05-23 14:41 ` Kefeng Wang
2017-05-23 22:04 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-05-23 22:04 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-05-24 8:32 ` Yisheng Xie
2017-05-24 8:32 ` Yisheng Xie
2017-05-24 8:57 ` Kefeng Wang
2017-05-24 8:57 ` Kefeng Wang
2017-05-24 10:32 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-24 10:32 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-24 10:42 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-24 10:42 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-24 10:49 ` Xishi Qiu [this message]
2017-05-24 10:49 ` Xishi Qiu
2017-05-24 11:38 ` Xishi Qiu
2017-05-24 11:38 ` Xishi Qiu
2017-05-24 11:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-24 11:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-24 12:10 ` Xishi Qiu
2017-05-24 12:10 ` Xishi Qiu
2017-05-24 13:16 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-24 13:16 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-25 1:16 ` Xishi Qiu
2017-05-25 1:16 ` Xishi Qiu
2017-05-25 6:12 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-25 6:12 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-25 1:00 ` Yisheng Xie
2017-05-25 1:00 ` Yisheng Xie
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=59256545.9010608@huawei.com \
--to=qiuxishi@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=xieyisheng1@huawei.com \
--cc=zhongjiang@huawei.com \
/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.