From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D6AC2F421 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:55:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1463320880 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:55:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730291AbfAUPzq (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:55:46 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49630 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728761AbfAUPzp (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:55:45 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9746588E65; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:55:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-125-147.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.125.147]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E0D1608DA; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:55:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:55:36 -0500 From: Jerome Glisse To: Peter Xu Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins , Maya Gokhale , Johannes Weiner , Martin Cracauer , Denis Plotnikov , Shaohua Li , Andrea Arcangeli , Mike Kravetz , Marty McFadden , Mike Rapoport , Mel Gorman , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 03/24] mm: allow VM_FAULT_RETRY for multiple times Message-ID: <20190121155536.GB3711@redhat.com> References: <20190121075722.7945-1-peterx@redhat.com> <20190121075722.7945-4-peterx@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190121075722.7945-4-peterx@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:55:45 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:57:01PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > The idea comes from a discussion between Linus and Andrea [1]. > > Before this patch we only allow a page fault to retry once. We achieved > this by clearing the FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY flag when doing > handle_mm_fault() the second time. This was majorly used to avoid > unexpected starvation of the system by looping over forever to handle > the page fault on a single page. However that should hardly happen, and > after all for each code path to return a VM_FAULT_RETRY we'll first wait > for a condition (during which time we should possibly yield the cpu) to > happen before VM_FAULT_RETRY is really returned. > > This patch removes the restriction by keeping the FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY > flag when we receive VM_FAULT_RETRY. It means that the page fault > handler now can retry the page fault for multiple times if necessary > without the need to generate another page fault event. Meanwhile we > still keep the FAULT_FLAG_TRIED flag so page fault handler can still > identify whether a page fault is the first attempt or not. So there is nothing protecting starvation after this patch ? AFAICT. Do we sufficient proof that we never have a scenario where one process might starve fault another ? For instance some page locking could starve one process. > > GUP code is not touched yet and will be covered in follow up patch. > > This will be a nice enhancement for current code at the same time a > supporting material for the future userfaultfd-writeprotect work since > in that work there will always be an explicit userfault writeprotect > retry for protected pages, and if that cannot resolve the page > fault (e.g., when userfaultfd-writeprotect is used in conjunction with > shared memory) then we'll possibly need a 3rd retry of the page fault. > It might also benefit other potential users who will have similar > requirement like userfault write-protection. > > Please read the thread below for more information. > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/2/833 > > Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds > Suggested-by: Andrea Arcangeli > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu > ---