Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] mm: swap: Remove CLUSTER_FLAG_HUGE from swap_cluster_info:flags

Huang, Ying
2024-03-05T06:13:50Z

Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> writes:

> + Hugh
>
> On 04/03/2024 22:02, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 04.03.24 22:55, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2024 20:50, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the existing free_swap_and_cache(). I think _swap_info_get() would
>>>>>>> break
>>>>>>> if this could race with swapoff(), and __swap_entry_free() looks up the
>>>>>>> cluster
>>>>>>> from an array, which would also be freed by swapoff if racing:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int free_swap_and_cache(swp_entry_t entry)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>       struct swap_info_struct *p;
>>>>>>>       unsigned char count;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       if (non_swap_entry(entry))
>>>>>>>           return 1;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       p = _swap_info_get(entry);
>>>>>>>       if (p) {
>>>>>>>           count = __swap_entry_free(p, entry);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If count dropped to 0 and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           if (count == SWAP_HAS_CACHE)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> count is now SWAP_HAS_CACHE, there is in fact no swap entry anymore. We
>>>>>> removed
>>>>>> it. That one would have to be reclaimed asynchronously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The existing code we would call swap_page_trans_huge_swapped() with the SI it
>>>>>> obtained via _swap_info_get().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also don't see what should be left protecting the SI. It's not locked
>>>>>> anymore,
>>>>>> the swapcounts are at 0. We don't hold the folio lock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> try_to_unuse() will stop as soon as si->inuse_pages is at 0. Hm ...
>>>>>
>>>>> But, assuming the caller of free_swap_and_cache() acquires the PTL first, I
>>>>> think this all works out ok? While free_swap_and_cache() is running,
>>>>> try_to_unuse() will wait for the PTL. Or if try_to_unuse() runs first, then
>>>>> free_swap_and_cache() will never be called because the swap entry will have
>>>>> been
>>>>> removed from the PTE?
>>>>
>>>> But can't try_to_unuse() run, detect !si->inuse_pages and not even bother about
>>>> scanning any further page tables?
>>>>
>>>> But my head hurts from digging through that code.
>>>
>>> Yep, glad I'm not the only one that gets headaches from swapfile.c.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let me try again:
>>>>
>>>> __swap_entry_free() might be the last user and result in "count ==
>>>> SWAP_HAS_CACHE".
>>>>
>>>> swapoff->try_to_unuse() will stop as soon as soon as si->inuse_pages==0.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the question is: could someone reclaim the folio and turn si->inuse_pages==0,
>>>> before we completed swap_page_trans_huge_swapped().
>>>>
>>>> Imagine the following: 2 MiB folio in the swapcache. Only 2 subpages are still
>>>> references by swap entries.
>>>>
>>>> Process 1 still references subpage 0 via swap entry.
>>>> Process 2 still references subpage 1 via swap entry.
>>>>
>>>> Process 1 quits. Calls free_swap_and_cache().
>>>> -> count == SWAP_HAS_CACHE
>>>> [then, preempted in the hypervisor etc.]
>>>>
>>>> Process 2 quits. Calls free_swap_and_cache().
>>>> -> count == SWAP_HAS_CACHE
>>>>
>>>> Process 2 goes ahead, passes swap_page_trans_huge_swapped(), and calls
>>>> __try_to_reclaim_swap().
>>>>
>>>> __try_to_reclaim_swap()->folio_free_swap()->delete_from_swap_cache()->put_swap_folio()->
>>>> free_swap_slot()->swapcache_free_entries()->swap_entry_free()->swap_range_free()->
>>>> ...
>>>> WRITE_ONCE(si->inuse_pages, si->inuse_pages - nr_entries);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What stops swapoff to succeed after process 2 reclaimed the swap cache but
>>>> before process 1 finished its call to swap_page_trans_huge_swapped()?
>>>
>>> Assuming you are talking about anonymous memory, process 1 has the PTL while
>>> it's executing free_swap_and_cache(). try_to_unuse() iterates over every vma in
>>> every mm, and it swaps-in a page for every PTE that holds a swap entry for the
>>> device being swapoff'ed. It takes the PTL while converting the swap entry to
>>> present PTE - see unuse_pte(). Process 1 must have beaten try_to_unuse() to the
>>> particular pte, because if try_to_unuse() got there first, it would have
>>> converted it from a swap entry to present pte and process 1 would never even
>>> have called free_swap_and_cache(). So try_to_unuse() will eventually wait on the
>>> PTL until process 1 has released it after free_swap_and_cache() completes. Am I
>>> missing something? Because that part feels pretty clear to me.
>>
>> Why should try_to_unuse() do *anything* if it already finds
>> si->inuse_pages == 0 because we (p1 } p2) just freed the swapentries and process
>> 2 managed to free the last remaining swapcache entry?
>
> Yeah ok. For some reason I thought unuse_mm() was iterating over all mms and so
> the `while (READ_ONCE(si->inuse_pages))` was only evaluated after iterating over
> every mm. Oops.
>
> So yes, I agree with you; I think this is broken. And I'm a bit worried this
> could be a can of worms; By the same logic, I think folio_free_swap(),
> swp_swapcount() and probably others are broken in the same way.

Don't worry too much :-), we have get_swap_device() at least. We can
insert it anywhere we want because it's quite lightweight. And, because
swapoff() is so rare, the race is theoretical only.

For this specific case, I had thought that PTL is enough. But after
looking at this more, I found a race here too. Until
__swap_entry_free() return, we are OK, nobody can reduce the swap count
because we held the PTL. But, after that, even if its return value is
SWAP_HAS_CACHE (that is, in swap cache), parallel swap_unuse() or
__try_to_reclaim_swap() may remove the folio from swap cache, so free
the swap entry. So, swapoff() can proceed to free the data structures
in parallel.

To fix the race, we can add get/put_swap_device() in
free_swap_and_cache().

For other places, we can check whether get/put_swap_device() has been
called in callers, and the swap reference we held has been decreased
(e.g., swap count protected by PTL, SWAP_HAS_CACHE protected by folio
lock).

> I wonder if we are missing something here? I've added Hugh - I see he has a lot
> of commits in this area, perhaps he has some advice?
>
> Thanks,
> Ryan
>
>
>>
>> I'm probably missing something important :)
>>
>> try_to_unuse() really starts with
>>
>>     if (!READ_ONCE(si->inuse_pages))
>>         goto success;
>>

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying