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

Vlastimil Babka
2014-06-06T07:20:23Z

On 06/05/2014 11:30 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
>> > > diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
>> > > index ae7db5f..3dce5a7 100644
>> > > --- a/mm/compaction.c
>> > > +++ b/mm/compaction.c
>> > > @@ -640,11 +640,18 @@ isolate_migratepages_range(struct zone *zone, struct
>> > > compact_control *cc,
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > /*
>> > > - * Skip if free. page_order cannot be used without zone->lock
>> > > - * as nothing prevents parallel allocations or buddy merging.
>> > > + * Skip if free. We read page order here without zone lock
>> > > + * which is generally unsafe, but the race window is small and
>> > > + * the worst thing that can happen is that we skip some
>> > > + * potential isolation targets.
>> >
>> > Should we only be doing the low_pfn adjustment based on the order for
>> > MIGRATE_ASYNC? It seems like sync compaction, including compaction that
>> > is triggered from the command line, would prefer to scan over the
>> > following pages.
>>
>> I thought even sync compaction would benefit from the skipped iterations. I'd
>> say the probability of this race is smaller than probability of somebody
>> allocating what compaction just freed.
>>
>
> Ok.
>
>> > > 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.

> with a comment about it being racy. It also helps to understand why
> you're testing for order < MAX_ORDER before skipping low_pfn there which
> is a little subtle right now.
>