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

David Hildenbrand
2024-03-04T22:02:10Z

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?

I'm probably missing something important :)

try_to_unuse() really starts with

if (!READ_ONCE(si->inuse_pages))
goto success;

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb