From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 32B182FC880 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2025 11:57:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756468664; cv=none; b=XrSPi4LLe0xmMEXhHLYBAgGpAmhdRLrZstkVEnj4I44/9d+b4j6Eojd3Sbkg7eNttvn/gXyGN0WZkGm0rLJ8zwTfMceAl9NUbw2oQ4GbnQtjObpJIw0oHPg8WW3r4E7WjahmNzcRgybe3wEbYRFCR9d3wDfy7lo8ZbuAJzjfCA4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756468664; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UhVB8HJlAyrOnH5f4Og5S4P1NPNiTomGarjtdGQI++o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=EkOD6pbX77iovZFgXoq/dZW2Bwzip7VvKpyDoGZ67HXA3Y9eb+kqLhDUSMlZdUmdgITUtX5yYWzPJon2KFeeu7bBuhWhVlIimN5hLpsyBIUKjTm8AjSMOq+WN9jgJhPMZ4W78DWmzocL+ke5KFrD//i/IHASERGcLPyDammQ4hc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=mGOUvtEe; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="mGOUvtEe" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 50ED1C4CEF0; Fri, 29 Aug 2025 11:57:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1756468663; bh=UhVB8HJlAyrOnH5f4Og5S4P1NPNiTomGarjtdGQI++o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mGOUvtEefHOvUnKUpRXwk5yr2EaCZdYu9SojDPbjxrYutCrAUalQPgYHc0LmqF1o+ rgT23w2JIL17hrybawOD03y4xZN7mLfJ3ZzVOJsTi94bDqezMbMvZxQ+MC4JHmdU7k BQ8ZSi2kddoqPWo/ciEOP0mZ2wd63v3lpynrXGhpEOs++zE2/T6l+K10KEWcMr3Dj0 5jiVhCgPOd5gknfmLKfR1smfBZR5Te/MXZ2s/fsyiulRc4ABP0gyO4ItPNlmV7kZDg b+jxl4crk4TFcdUz933Ayt9+oNspJEmDWfxl33nqUDM5p+kLpsv3XADBKpeOPDBvlW CxPaIeJpDmTaA== Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 12:57:37 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Hugh Dickins Cc: David Hildenbrand , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Keir Fraser , Jason Gunthorpe , John Hubbard , Frederick Mayle , Andrew Morton , Peter Xu , Rik van Riel , Vlastimil Babka , Ge Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/gup: Drain batched mlock folio processing before attempting migration Message-ID: References: <20250815101858.24352-1-will@kernel.org> <9e7d31b9-1eaf-4599-ce42-b80c0c4bb25d@google.com> <8376d8a3-cc36-ae70-0fa8-427e9ca17b9b@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8376d8a3-cc36-ae70-0fa8-427e9ca17b9b@google.com> Hi Hugh, On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 01:47:14AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2025, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Aug 2025, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 02:31:42PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > > I think replace the folio_test_mlocked(folio) part of it by > > > > > (folio_test_mlocked(folio) && !folio_test_unevictable(folio)). > > > > > That should reduce the extra calls to a much more reasonable > > > > > number, while still solving your issue. > > > > > > > > Alas, I fear that the folio may be unevictable by this point (which > > > > seems to coincide with the readahead fault adding it to the LRU above) > > > > but I can try it out. > > > > > > I gave this a spin but I still see failures with this change. > > > > Many thanks, Will, for the precisely relevant traces (in which, > > by the way, mapcount=0 really means _mapcount=0 hence mapcount=1). > > > > Yes, those do indeed illustrate a case which my suggested > > (folio_test_mlocked(folio) && !folio_test_unevictable(folio)) > > failed to cover. Very helpful to have an example of that. > > > > And many thanks, David, for your reminder of commit 33dfe9204f29 > > ("mm/gup: clear the LRU flag of a page before adding to LRU batch"). > > > > Yes, I strongly agree with your suggestion that the mlock batch > > be brought into line with its change to the ordinary LRU batches, > > and agree that doing so will be likely to solve Will's issue > > (and similar cases elsewhere, without needing to modify them). > > > > Now I just have to cool my head and get back down into those > > mlock batches. I am fearful that making a change there to suit > > this case will turn out later to break another case (and I just > > won't have time to redevelop as thorough a grasp of the races as > > I had back then). But if we're lucky, applying that "one batch > > at a time" rule will actually make it all more comprehensible. > > > > (I so wish we had spare room in struct page to keep the address > > of that one batch entry, or the CPU to which that one batch > > belongs: then, although that wouldn't eliminate all uses of > > lru_add_drain_all(), it would allow us to efficiently extract > > a target page from its LRU batch without a remote drain.) > > > > I have not yet begun to write such a patch, and I'm not yet sure > > that it's even feasible: this mail sent to get the polite thank > > yous out of my mind, to help clear it for getting down to work. > > It took several days in search of the least bad compromise, but > in the end I concluded the opposite of what we'd intended above. > > There is a fundamental incompatibility between my 5.18 2fbb0c10d1e8 > ("mm/munlock: mlock_page() munlock_page() batch by pagevec") > and Ge Yang's 6.11 33dfe9204f29 > ("mm/gup: clear the LRU flag of a page before adding to LRU batch"). That's actually pretty good news, as I was initially worried that we'd have to backport a fix all the way back to 6.1. From the above, the only LTS affected is 6.12.y. > It turns out that the mm/swap.c folio batches (apart from lru_add) > are all for best-effort, doesn't matter if it's missed, operations; > whereas mlock and munlock are more serious. Probably mlock could > be (not very satisfactorily) converted, but then munlock? Because > of failed folio_test_clear_lru()s, it would be far too likely to > err on either side, munlocking too soon or too late. > > I've concluded that one or the other has to go. If we're having > a beauty contest, there's no doubt that 33dfe9204f29 is much nicer > than 2fbb0c10d1e8 (which is itself far from perfect). But functionally, > I'm afraid that removing the mlock/munlock batching will show up as a > perceptible regression in realistic workloadsg; and on consideration, > I've found no real justification for the LRU flag clearing change. > > Unless I'm mistaken, collect_longterm_unpinnable_folios() should > never have been relying on folio_test_lru(), and should simply be > checking for expected ref_count instead. > > Will, please give the portmanteau patch (combination of four) > below a try: reversion of 33dfe9204f29 and a later MGLRU fixup, > corrected test in collect...(), preparatory lru_add_drain() there. > > I hope you won't be proving me wrong again, and I can move on to > writing up those four patches (and adding probably three more that > make sense in such a series, but should not affect your testing). > > I've tested enough to know that it's not harmful, but am hoping > to take advantage of your superior testing, particularly in the > GUP pin area. But if you're uneasy with the combination, and would > prefer to check just the minimum, then ignore the reversions and try > just the mm/gup.c part of it - that will probably be good enough for > you even without the reversions. Thanks, I'll try to test the whole lot. I was geographically separated from my testing device yesterday but I should be able to give it a spin later today. I'm _supposed_ to be writing my KVM Forum slides for next week, so this offers a perfect opportunity to procrastinate. > Patch is against 6.17-rc3; but if you'd prefer the patch against 6.12 > (or an intervening release), I already did the backport so please just > ask. We've got 6.15 working well at the moment, so I'll backport your diff to that. One question on the diff below: > Thanks! > > mm/gup.c | 5 ++++- > mm/swap.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ > mm/vmscan.c | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c > index adffe663594d..9f7c87f504a9 100644 > --- a/mm/gup.c > +++ b/mm/gup.c > @@ -2291,6 +2291,8 @@ static unsigned long collect_longterm_unpinnable_folios( > struct folio *folio; > long i = 0; > > + lru_add_drain(); > + > for (folio = pofs_get_folio(pofs, i); folio; > folio = pofs_next_folio(folio, pofs, &i)) { > > @@ -2307,7 +2309,8 @@ static unsigned long collect_longterm_unpinnable_folios( > continue; > } > > - if (!folio_test_lru(folio) && drain_allow) { > + if (drain_allow && folio_ref_count(folio) != > + folio_expected_ref_count(folio) + 1) { > lru_add_drain_all(); How does this synchronise with the folio being added to the mlock batch on another CPU? need_mlock_drain(), which is what I think lru_add_drain_all() ends up using to figure out which CPU batches to process, just looks at the 'nr' field in the batch and I can't see anything in mlock_folio() to ensure any ordering between adding the folio to the batch and incrementing its refcount. Then again, my hack to use folio_test_mlocked() would have a similar issue because the flag is set (albeit with barrier semantics) before adding the folio to the batch, meaning the drain could miss the folio. I guess there's some higher-level synchronisation making this all work, but it would be good to understand that as I can't see that collect_longterm_unpinnable_folios() can rely on much other than the pin. Will