Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: rmap: Fix CONT-PTE/PMD size hugetlb issue when migration

Baolin Wang
2022-05-08T09:19:43Z

On 5/7/2022 10:33 AM, Baolin Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 5/7/2022 1:56 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 5/5/22 20:39, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/6/2022 7:53 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/22 01:14, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>> On some architectures (like ARM64), it can support CONT-PTE/PMD size
>>>>> hugetlb, which means it can support not only PMD/PUD size hugetlb:
>>>>> 2M and 1G, but also CONT-PTE/PMD size: 64K and 32M if a 4K page
>>>>> size specified.
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>>>>> index 6fdd198..7cf2408 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>>>>> @@ -1924,13 +1924,15 @@ static bool try_to_migrate_one(struct folio
>>>>> *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>                        break;
>>>>>                    }
>>>>>                }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +            /* Nuke the hugetlb page table entry */
>>>>> +            pteval = huge_ptep_clear_flush(vma, address, pvmw.pte);
>>>>>            } else {
>>>>>                flush_cache_page(vma, address, pte_pfn(*pvmw.pte));
>>>>> +            /* Nuke the page table entry. */
>>>>> +            pteval = ptep_clear_flush(vma, address, pvmw.pte);
>>>>>            }
>>>>
>>>> On arm64 with CONT-PTE/PMD the returned pteval will have dirty or
>>>> young set
>>>> if ANY of the PTE/PMDs had dirty or young set.
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -        /* Nuke the page table entry. */
>>>>> -        pteval = ptep_clear_flush(vma, address, pvmw.pte);
>>>>> -
>>>>>            /* Set the dirty flag on the folio now the pte is gone. */
>>>>>            if (pte_dirty(pteval))
>>>>>                folio_mark_dirty(folio);
>>>>> @@ -2015,7 +2017,10 @@ static bool try_to_migrate_one(struct folio
>>>>> *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>                pte_t swp_pte;
>>>>>                  if (arch_unmap_one(mm, vma, address, pteval) < 0) {
>>>>> -                set_pte_at(mm, address, pvmw.pte, pteval);
>>>>> +                if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio))
>>>>> +                    set_huge_pte_at(mm, address, pvmw.pte, pteval);
>>>>
>>>> And, we will use that pteval for ALL the PTE/PMDs here.  So, we
>>>> would set
>>>> the dirty or young bit in ALL PTE/PMDs.
>>>>
>>>> Could that cause any issues?  May be more of a question for the
>>>> arm64 people.
>>>
>>> I don't think this will cause any issues. Since the hugetlb can not
>>> be split, and we should not lose the the dirty or young state if any
>>> subpages were set. Meanwhile we already did like this in hugetlb.c:
>>>
>>> pte = huge_ptep_get_and_clear(mm, address, ptep);
>>> tlb_remove_huge_tlb_entry(h, tlb, ptep, address);
>>> if (huge_pte_dirty(pte))
>>>      set_page_dirty(page);
>>>
>>
>> Agree that it 'should not' cause issues.  It just seems inconsistent.
>> This is not a problem specifically with your patch, just the handling of
>> CONT-PTE/PMD entries.
>>
>> There does not appear to be an arm64 specific version of huge_ptep_get()
>> that takes CONT-PTE/PMD into account.  So, huge_ptep_get() would only
>> return the one specific value.  It would not take into account the dirty
>> or young bits of CONT-PTE/PMDs like your new version of
>> huge_ptep_get_and_clear.  Is that correct?  Or, am I missing something.
>
> Yes, you are right.
>
>>
>> If I am correct, then code like the following may not work:
>>
>> static int gather_hugetlb_stats(pte_t *pte, unsigned long hmask,
>>                  unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, struct mm_walk
>> *walk)
>> {
>>          pte_t huge_pte = huge_ptep_get(pte);
>>          struct numa_maps *md;
>>          struct page *page;
>>
>>          if (!pte_present(huge_pte))
>>                  return 0;
>>
>>          page = pte_page(huge_pte);
>>
>>          md = walk->private;
>>          gather_stats(page, md, pte_dirty(huge_pte), 1);
>>          return 0;
>> }
>
> Right, this is inconsistent with current huge_ptep_get() interface like
> you said. So I think we can define an ARCH-specific huge_ptep_get()
> interface for arm64, and some sample code like below. How do you think?

After some investigation, I send out a RFC patch set[1] to address this
issue. We can talk about this issue in that thread. Thanks.

[1]