Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] mm/gup: reintroduce FOLL_NUMA as FOLL_HONOR_NUMA_FAULT

Mel Gorman
2023-08-02T15:28:07Z

On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 02:48:37PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Unfortunately commit 474098edac26 ("mm/gup: replace FOLL_NUMA by
> gup_can_follow_protnone()") missed that follow_page() and
> follow_trans_huge_pmd() never implicitly set FOLL_NUMA because they really
> don't want to fail on PROT_NONE-mapped pages -- either due to NUMA hinting
> or due to inaccessible (PROT_NONE) VMAs.
>
> As spelled out in commit 0b9d705297b2 ("mm: numa: Support NUMA hinting page
> faults from gup/gup_fast"): "Other follow_page callers like KSM should not
> use FOLL_NUMA, or they would fail to get the pages if they use follow_page
> instead of get_user_pages."
>
> liubo reported [1] that smaps_rollup results are imprecise, because they
> miss accounting of pages that are mapped PROT_NONE. Further, it's easy
> to reproduce that KSM no longer works on inaccessible VMAs on x86-64,
> because pte_protnone()/pmd_protnone() also indictaes "true" in
> inaccessible VMAs, and follow_page() refuses to return such pages right
> now.
>
> As KVM really depends on these NUMA hinting faults, removing the
> pte_protnone()/pmd_protnone() handling in GUP code completely is not really
> an option.
>
> To fix the issues at hand, let's revive FOLL_NUMA as FOLL_HONOR_NUMA_FAULT
> to restore the original behavior for now and add better comments.
>
> Set FOLL_HONOR_NUMA_FAULT independent of FOLL_FORCE in
> is_valid_gup_args(), to add that flag for all external GUP users.
>
> Note that there are three GUP-internal __get_user_pages() users that don't
> end up calling is_valid_gup_args() and consequently won't get
> FOLL_HONOR_NUMA_FAULT set.
>
> 1) get_dump_page(): we really don't want to handle NUMA hinting
> faults. It specifies FOLL_FORCE and wouldn't have honored NUMA
> hinting faults already.
> 2) populate_vma_page_range(): we really don't want to handle NUMA hinting
> faults. It specifies FOLL_FORCE on accessible VMAs, so it wouldn't have
> honored NUMA hinting faults already.
> 3) faultin_vma_page_range(): we similarly don't want to handle NUMA
> hinting faults.
>
> To make the combination of FOLL_FORCE and FOLL_HONOR_NUMA_FAULT work in
> inaccessible VMAs properly, we have to perform VMA accessibility checks in
> gup_can_follow_protnone().
>
> As GUP-fast should reject such pages either way in
> pte_access_permitted()/pmd_access_permitted() -- for example on x86-64 and
> arm64 that both implement pte_protnone() -- let's just always fallback
> to ordinary GUP when stumbling over pte_protnone()/pmd_protnone().
>
> As Linus notes [2], honoring NUMA faults might only make sense for
> selected GUP users.
>
> So we should really see if we can instead let relevant GUP callers specify
> it manually, and not trigger NUMA hinting faults from GUP as default.
> Prepare for that by making FOLL_HONOR_NUMA_FAULT an external GUP flag
> and adding appropriate documenation.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230726073409.631838-1-liubo254@huawei.com
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wgRiP_9X0rRdZKT8nhemZGNateMtb366t37d8-x7VRs=g@mail.gmail.com
>
> Reported-by: liubo <liubo254@huawei.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230726073409.631838-1-liubo254@huawei.com
> Reported-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZMKJjDaqZ7FW0jfe@x1n/
> Fixes: 474098edac26 ("mm/gup: replace FOLL_NUMA by gup_can_follow_protnone()")
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

I agree that FOLL_REMOTE probably needs separate treatment but also agree
that it's outside the context of this patch, particularly as a -stable
candidate so

Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>

I've a minor nit below that would be nice to get fixed up, but not
mandatory.

> ---
> include/linux/mm.h | 21 +++++++++++++++------
> include/linux/mm_types.h | 9 +++++++++
> mm/gup.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++------
> mm/huge_memory.c | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> index 2493ffa10f4b..f463d3004ddc 100644
> --- a/mm/gup.c
> +++ b/mm/gup.c
> @@ -2240,6 +2244,12 @@ static bool is_valid_gup_args(struct page **pages, int *locked,
> gup_flags |= FOLL_UNLOCKABLE;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * For now, always trigger NUMA hinting faults. Some GUP users like
> + * KVM really require it to benefit from autonuma.
> + */
> + gup_flags |= FOLL_HONOR_NUMA_FAULT;
> +
> /* FOLL_GET and FOLL_PIN are mutually exclusive. */
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE((gup_flags & (FOLL_PIN | FOLL_GET)) ==
> (FOLL_PIN | FOLL_GET)))

Expand on *why* KVM requires it even though I suspect this changes later
in the series. Maybe "Some GUP users like KVM require the hint to be as
the calling context of GUP is functionally similar to a memory reference
from task context"?

Also minor nit -- s/autonuma/NUMA Balancing/ or numab. autonuma refers to
a specific implementation of automatic balancing that operated similar to
khugepaged but not merged. If you grep for it, you'll find that autonuma
is only referenced in powerpc-specific code. It's not important these
days but very early on, it was very confusing if AutoNUMA was mentioned
when NUMAB was intended.

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs