From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-119.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-119.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CF0417736; Mon, 23 Jun 2025 03:38:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.119 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750649939; cv=none; b=WLLGGXBunsa+1Vz0Zl6XS4FpVuHBLpgxZUPC7tk3ywA2TbeXXwzbLzZ4LB98+qhH0rBVLusWVwLZbQVqFXjGNAV+nz/55QCVlATtBDvZ3DF22Tb5LD9RHMBGrUlflE3BZ4qXrMYgaDkoUJVtF4TWBT0DBeR/uHmfTJ441BQOx2E= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750649939; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9p2WIEDgefKFHAnwThfoRIGGduHXCkoQj/Lq9rwVK3I=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=MgSkY3cHfKiWTXbVAFoExslUz2lNF9keDrDiOBDZhd87h3k+ZXsvnqgU5bZWOzwhq66xTC0jBmVnnO6+oUb8W7OvF+YekTdgafR9LDDJelSzs7JpJrQqgVkt17+OX2gYLt0x06B6urtu6goGgWTrSMtqsGUgT4FJVLTUJloCiew= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=pGLf6Fwm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.119 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="pGLf6Fwm" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1750649934; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=5FYQj48wsEqvtrDOtYtJF6xNw63teRydsL/cwkD20bY=; b=pGLf6Fwmb/D1shpYjq9kU23lTCHzziROr2ctOtqzE982miCXUzdtC3/hUO4xcd4C/1bckteeIsYDE0ijYkE11exrNIf44f/CvJQ8nIlIksbcEg0g21T4ghes7LYdt9rk3gEsQ7gWMpJbzPvTi3BJvs+KICE04bHHT5rPkxnhOQY= Received: from 30.74.144.128(mailfrom:baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WeSNDHE_1750649933 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:38:54 +0800 Message-ID: <9e31bbb8-73e7-4e67-973d-491f93ba938f@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:38:53 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm/shmem, swap: improve cached mTHP handling and fix potential hung To: Kairui Song Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , Matthew Wilcox , Kemeng Shi , Chris Li , Nhat Pham , Baoquan He , Barry Song , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org References: <20250619175538.15799-1-ryncsn@gmail.com> <20250619175538.15799-2-ryncsn@gmail.com> From: Baolin Wang In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2025/6/23 11:35, Kairui Song wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 11:26 AM Baolin Wang > wrote: >> >> Hi Kairui, >> >> On 2025/6/20 01:55, Kairui Song wrote: >>> From: Kairui Song >>> >>> The current swap-in code assumes that, when a swap entry in shmem >>> mapping is order 0, its cached folios (if present) must be order 0 >>> too, which turns out not always correct. >>> >>> The problem is shmem_split_large_entry is called before verifying the >>> folio will eventually be swapped in, one possible race is: >>> >>> CPU1 CPU2 >>> shmem_swapin_folio >>> /* swap in of order > 0 swap entry S1 */ >>> folio = swap_cache_get_folio >>> /* folio = NULL */ >>> order = xa_get_order >>> /* order > 0 */ >>> folio = shmem_swap_alloc_folio >>> /* mTHP alloc failure, folio = NULL */ >>> <... Interrupted ...> >>> shmem_swapin_folio >>> /* S1 is swapped in */ >>> shmem_writeout >>> /* S1 is swapped out, folio cached */ >>> shmem_split_large_entry(..., S1) >>> /* S1 is split, but the folio covering it has order > 0 now */ >>> >>> Now any following swapin of S1 will hang: `xa_get_order` returns 0, >>> and folio lookup will return a folio with order > 0. The >>> `xa_get_order(&mapping->i_pages, index) != folio_order(folio)` will >>> always return false causing swap-in to return -EEXIST. >>> >>> And this looks fragile. So fix this up by allowing seeing a larger folio >>> in swap cache, and check the whole shmem mapping range covered by the >>> swapin have the right swap value upon inserting the folio. And drop >>> the redundant tree walks before the insertion. >>> >>> This will actually improve the performance, as it avoided two redundant >>> Xarray tree walks in the hot path, and the only side effect is that in >>> the failure path, shmem may redundantly reallocate a few folios >>> causing temporary slight memory pressure. >>> >>> And worth noting, it may seems the order and value check before >>> inserting might help reducing the lock contention, which is not true. >>> The swap cache layer ensures raced swapin will either see a swap cache >>> folio or failed to do a swapin (we have SWAP_HAS_CACHE bit even if >>> swap cache is bypassed), so holding the folio lock and checking the >>> folio flag is already good enough for avoiding the lock contention. >>> The chance that a folio passes the swap entry value check but the >>> shmem mapping slot has changed should be very low. >> >> Thanks for fixing the issue. Sadly, I haven't reproduced this issue from >> my previous test cases :( >> >> And I have a question below. >> >>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org >>> Fixes: 809bc86517cc ("mm: shmem: support large folio swap out") >>> Signed-off-by: Kairui Song >>> Reviewed-by: Kemeng Shi >>> --- >>> mm/shmem.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++--------- >>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c >>> index eda35be2a8d9..4e7ef343a29b 100644 >>> --- a/mm/shmem.c >>> +++ b/mm/shmem.c >>> @@ -884,7 +884,9 @@ static int shmem_add_to_page_cache(struct folio *folio, >>> pgoff_t index, void *expected, gfp_t gfp) >>> { >>> XA_STATE_ORDER(xas, &mapping->i_pages, index, folio_order(folio)); >>> - long nr = folio_nr_pages(folio); >>> + unsigned long nr = folio_nr_pages(folio); >>> + swp_entry_t iter, swap; >>> + void *entry; >>> >>> VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(index != round_down(index, nr), folio); >>> VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_locked(folio), folio); >>> @@ -896,14 +898,24 @@ static int shmem_add_to_page_cache(struct folio *folio, >>> >>> gfp &= GFP_RECLAIM_MASK; >>> folio_throttle_swaprate(folio, gfp); >>> + swap = iter = radix_to_swp_entry(expected); >>> >>> do { >>> xas_lock_irq(&xas); >>> - if (expected != xas_find_conflict(&xas)) { >>> - xas_set_err(&xas, -EEXIST); >>> - goto unlock; >>> + xas_for_each_conflict(&xas, entry) { >>> + /* >>> + * The range must either be empty, or filled with >>> + * expected swap entries. Shmem swap entries are never >>> + * partially freed without split of both entry and >>> + * folio, so there shouldn't be any holes. >>> + */ >>> + if (!expected || entry != swp_to_radix_entry(iter)) { >>> + xas_set_err(&xas, -EEXIST); >>> + goto unlock; >>> + } >>> + iter.val += 1 << xas_get_order(&xas); >>> } >>> - if (expected && xas_find_conflict(&xas)) { >>> + if (expected && iter.val - nr != swap.val) { >>> xas_set_err(&xas, -EEXIST); >>> goto unlock; >>> } >>> @@ -2323,7 +2335,7 @@ static int shmem_swapin_folio(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index, >>> error = -ENOMEM; >>> goto failed; >>> } >>> - } else if (order != folio_order(folio)) { >>> + } else if (order > folio_order(folio)) { >>> /* >>> * Swap readahead may swap in order 0 folios into swapcache >>> * asynchronously, while the shmem mapping can still stores >>> @@ -2348,15 +2360,15 @@ static int shmem_swapin_folio(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index, >>> >>> swap = swp_entry(swp_type(swap), swp_offset(swap) + offset); >>> } >>> + } else if (order < folio_order(folio)) { >>> + swap.val = round_down(swp_type(swap), folio_order(folio)); >> >> Why rounding down the swap type? do you mean rounding down the swap offset? > > Ouch, right, it should be the value: > > swap.val = round_down(swap.val, folio_order(folio)); > > I messed up the code here during a rebase, let me send a V3 then. Should be swap.val = round_down(swap.val, 1 << folio_order(folio)); ?