Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] mm, compaction: skip buddy pages by their order in the migrate scanner

Vlastimil Babka
2014-06-09T11:35:52Z

On 06/09/2014 11:09 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2014, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
>>>>>> index 1a8a0d4..6aa1f74 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/internal.h
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/internal.h
>>>>>> @@ -164,7 +164,8 @@ isolate_migratepages_range(struct zone *zone, struct
>>>>>> compact_control *cc,
>>>>>> * general, page_zone(page)->lock must be held by the caller to prevent
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> * page from being allocated in parallel and returning garbage as the
>>>>>> order.
>>>>>> * If a caller does not hold page_zone(page)->lock, it must guarantee
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> - * page cannot be allocated or merged in parallel.
>>>>>> + * page cannot be allocated or merged in parallel. Alternatively, it must
>>>>>> + * handle invalid values gracefully, and use page_order_unsafe() below.
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> static inline unsigned long page_order(struct page *page)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> @@ -172,6 +173,23 @@ static inline unsigned long page_order(struct page
>>>>>> *page)
>>>>>> return page_private(page);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>> + * Like page_order(), but for callers who cannot afford to hold the zone
>>>>>> lock,
>>>>>> + * and handle invalid values gracefully. ACCESS_ONCE is used so that if
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> + * caller assigns the result into a local variable and e.g. tests it for
>>>>>> valid
>>>>>> + * range before using, the compiler cannot decide to remove the variable
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> + * inline the function multiple times, potentially observing different
>>>>>> values
>>>>>> + * in the tests and the actual use of the result.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +static inline unsigned long page_order_unsafe(struct page *page)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * PageBuddy() should be checked by the caller to minimize race
>>>>>> window,
>>>>>> + * and invalid values must be handled gracefully.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + return ACCESS_ONCE(page_private(page));
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> /* mm/util.c */
>>>>>> void __vma_link_list(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>> struct vm_area_struct *prev, struct rb_node *rb_parent);
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't like this change at all, I don't think we should have header
>>>>> functions that imply the context in which the function will be called. I
>>>>> think it would make much more sense to just do
>>>>> ACCESS_ONCE(page_order(page)) in the migration scanner with a comment.
>>>>
>>>> But that won't compile. It would have to be converted to a #define, unless
>>>> there's some trick I don't know. Sure I would hope this could be done cleaner
>>>> somehow.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, I meant ACCESS_ONCE(page_private(page)) in the migration scanner
>>
>> Hm but that's breaking the abstraction of page_order(). I don't know if it's
>> worse to create a new variant of page_order() or to do this. BTW, seems like
>> next_active_pageblock() in memory-hotplug.c should use this variant too.
>>
>
> The compiler seems free to disregard the access of a volatile object above
> because the return value of the inline function is unsigned long. What's
> the difference between unsigned long order = page_order_unsafe(page) and
> unsigned long order = (unsigned long)ACCESS_ONCE(page_private(page)) and

I think there's none functionally, but one is abstraction layer
violation and the other imply the context of usage as you say (but is
that so uncommon?).

> the compiler being able to reaccess page_private() because the result is
> no longer volatile qualified?

You think it will reaccess? That would defeat all current ACCESS_ONCE
usages, no?

What I'm trying to prevent is that this code:

unsigned long freepage_order = page_order(page);

if (freepage_order > 0 && freepage_order < MAX_ORDER)
low_pfn += (1UL << freepage_order) - 1;

could be effectively changed (AFAIK legal for the compiler to do) to:

if (page_order(page) > 0 && page_order(page) < MAX_ORDER)
low_pfn += (1UL << page_order(page)) - 1;

And thus check a different value than it's in the end used to bump low_pfn.

I believe that even though freepage_order itself is not volatile, the
fact it was assigned through a volatile cast means the compiler won't be
able to do this anymore.

> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: email@kvack.org
>