Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] mm: page_mkclean, ttu: handle pinned pages

John Hubbard
2018-07-02T21:07:44Z

On 07/02/2018 03:15 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 01-07-18 17:56:54, john.hubbard@gmail.com wrote:
>> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
>> index 9d142b9b86dc..c4bc8d216746 100644
>> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
>> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
>> @@ -931,6 +931,7 @@ static bool hwpoison_user_mappings(struct page *p, unsigned long pfn,
>> int kill = 1, forcekill;
>> struct page *hpage = *hpagep;
>> bool mlocked = PageMlocked(hpage);
>> + bool skip_pinned_pages = false;
>
> I'm not sure we can afford to wait for page pins when handling page
> poisoning. In an ideal world we should but... But I guess this is for
> someone understanding memory poisoning better to judge.

OK, then until I hear otherwise, in the next version I'll set
skipped_pinned_pages = true here, based on the idea that it's probably
better to be sure we don't hang while trying to remove a bad page. It's
hard to achieve perfection in the presence of a memory failure.

>
>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>> index 6db729dc4c50..c137c43eb2ad 100644
>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>> @@ -879,6 +879,26 @@ int page_referenced(struct page *page,
>> return pra.referenced;
>> }
>>
>> +/* Must be called with pinned_dma_lock held. */
>> +static void wait_for_dma_pinned_to_clear(struct page *page)
>> +{
>> + struct zone *zone = page_zone(page);
>> +
>> + while (PageDmaPinnedFlags(page)) {
>> + spin_unlock(zone_gup_lock(zone));
>> +
>> + schedule();
>> +
>> + spin_lock(zone_gup_lock(zone));
>> + }
>> +}
>
> Ouch, we definitely need something better here. Either reuse the
> page_waitqueue() mechanism or create at least a global wait queue for this
> (I don't expect too much contention on the waitqueue and even if there
> eventually is, we can switch to page_waitqueue() when we find it). But
> this is a no-go...

Yes, no problem. At one point I had a separate bit waiting queue, which was
only a few lines of code to do, but I dropped it because I thought that maybe
it was overkill. I'll put it back in.

>
>> +
>> +struct page_mkclean_info {
>> + int cleaned;
>> + int skipped;
>> + bool skip_pinned_pages;
>> +};
>> +
>> static bool page_mkclean_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> unsigned long address, void *arg)
>> {
>> @@ -889,7 +909,24 @@ static bool page_mkclean_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> .flags = PVMW_SYNC,
>> };
>> unsigned long start = address, end;
>> - int *cleaned = arg;
>> + struct page_mkclean_info *mki = (struct page_mkclean_info *)arg;
>> + bool is_dma_pinned;
>> + struct zone *zone = page_zone(page);
>> +
>> + /* Serialize with get_user_pages: */
>> + spin_lock(zone_gup_lock(zone));
>> + is_dma_pinned = PageDmaPinned(page);
>
> Hum, why do you do this for each page table this is mapped in? Also the
> locking is IMHO going to hurt a lot and we need to avoid it.
>
> What I think needs to happen is that in page_mkclean(), after you've
> cleared all the page tables, you check PageDmaPinned() and wait if needed.
> Page cannot be faulted in again as we hold page lock and so races with
> concurrent GUP are fairly limited. So with some careful ordering & memory
> barriers you should be able to get away without any locking. Ditto for the
> unmap path...
>

I guess I was thinking about this backwards. It would work much better if
we go ahead and write protect or unmap first, let things drain, and wait later.
Very nice!

thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA