From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-99.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-99.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.99]) (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 3CC7123774; Mon, 23 Jun 2025 03:32:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.99 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750649525; cv=none; b=CfANIKEzfnLTpAtqaic+44bdhOoArK+Aq9fAVn5lzSizYTcOH0dNy4RQhzRa7iNyQRIboU3e/LSDp/chFkXAn4GJHCcZCUGWJjaH0aibrA6hr1j/EZmW+Tie8feivOQEmTR871ET64KR3CFFQyR4xFUA3L3lFy3woVUTHX7jO/E= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750649525; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ptmrSPw4u/sC94iu8etg+3UM6WuNpNyczzEblTaE4dU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=APzoNKSjAYNrJGWs74wAU8+xdmCzAX8n1dKggBerUTwbmZS8qulL27cCAZlNRuvVJd+YJHjcJHYV/CjXU1/jLrrho5IJwCzXlcNXRFTx6iRVN7kZ47c3j6ub8ViWqCuW04owve6cL0ZH7k0WwyHHvJUxbx/nkp1k9TfB1FbQ0Js= 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=PC72J30s; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.99 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="PC72J30s" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1750649514; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=wYHutWc8bo/cobGKcb79yoay4X6hZe8yZdDY2OXxASI=; b=PC72J30s/Chi9U2r21tRhw0CJyKfvnQYy3laKGGYLWBnagJ0qymnlQqx/u9TJHCtAt64Q5ENacqtoYlDMyqkjft5opdps0JwPH329R8h+c0Q2NNjdTpauBMk2eYGkG6FQLI7AfyXLVz8yzOkBmGbc+9cW8f5yX3ZUwhjYDk2aZE= Received: from 30.74.144.128(mailfrom:baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WeSN70M_1750649193 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:26:33 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:26:32 +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 , linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: 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: <20250619175538.15799-2-ryncsn@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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? > } > > alloced: > /* We have to do this with folio locked to prevent races */ > folio_lock(folio); > if ((!skip_swapcache && !folio_test_swapcache(folio)) || > - folio->swap.val != swap.val || > - !shmem_confirm_swap(mapping, index, swap) || > - xa_get_order(&mapping->i_pages, index) != folio_order(folio)) { > + folio->swap.val != swap.val) { > error = -EEXIST; > goto unlock; > }