lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHi v2] mm: put_and_wait_on_page_locked() while page is migrated
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:27:07AM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Waiting on a page migration entry has used wait_on_page_locked() all
> along since 2006: but you cannot safely wait_on_page_locked() without
> holding a reference to the page, and that extra reference is enough to
> make migrate_page_move_mapping() fail with -EAGAIN, when a racing task
> faults on the entry before migrate_page_move_mapping() gets there.
>
> And that failure is retried nine times, amplifying the pain when
> trying to migrate a popular page. With a single persistent faulter,
> migration sometimes succeeds; with two or three concurrent faulters,
> success becomes much less likely (and the more the page was mapped,
> the worse the overhead of unmapping and remapping it on each try).
>
> This is especially a problem for memory offlining, where the outer
> level retries forever (or until terminated from userspace), because
> a heavy refault workload can trigger an endless loop of migration
> failures. wait_on_page_locked() is the wrong tool for the job.
>
> David Herrmann (but was he the first?) noticed this issue in 2014:
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=140110465608116&w=2
>
> Tim Chen started a thread in August 2017 which appears relevant:
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=150275941014915&w=2
> where Kan Liang went on to implicate __migration_entry_wait():
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=150300268411980&w=2
> and the thread ended up with the v4.14 commits:
> 2554db916586 ("sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk")
> 11a19c7b099f ("sched/wait: Introduce wakeup boomark in wake_up_page_bit")
>
> Baoquan He reported "Memory hotplug softlock issue" 14 November 2018:
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=154217936431300&w=2
>
> We have all assumed that it is essential to hold a page reference while
> waiting on a page lock: partly to guarantee that there is still a struct
> page when MEMORY_HOTREMOVE is configured, but also to protect against
> reuse of the struct page going to someone who then holds the page locked
> indefinitely, when the waiter can reasonably expect timely unlocking.
>
> But in fact, so long as wait_on_page_bit_common() does the put_page(),
> and is careful not to rely on struct page contents thereafter, there is
> no need to hold a reference to the page while waiting on it. That does
> mean that this case cannot go back through the loop: but that's fine for
> the page migration case, and even if used more widely, is limited by the
> "Stop walking if it's locked" optimization in wake_page_function().
>
> Add interface put_and_wait_on_page_locked() to do this, using "behavior"
> enum in place of "lock" arg to wait_on_page_bit_common() to implement it.
> No interruptible or killable variant needed yet, but they might follow:
> I have a vague notion that reporting -EINTR should take precedence over
> return from wait_on_page_bit_common() without knowing the page state,
> so arrange it accordingly - but that may be nothing but pedantic.
>
> __migration_entry_wait() still has to take a brief reference to the
> page, prior to calling put_and_wait_on_page_locked(): but now that it
> is dropped before waiting, the chance of impeding page migration is
> very much reduced. Should we perhaps disable preemption across this?
>
> shrink_page_list()'s __ClearPageLocked(): that was a surprise! This
> survived a lot of testing before that showed up. PageWaiters may have
> been set by wait_on_page_bit_common(), and the reference dropped, just
> before shrink_page_list() succeeds in freezing its last page reference:
> in such a case, unlock_page() must be used. Follow the suggestion from
> Michal Hocko, just revert a978d6f52106 ("mm: unlockless reclaim") now:
> that optimization predates PageWaiters, and won't buy much these days;
> but we can reinstate it for the !PageWaiters case if anyone notices.
>
> It does raise the question: should vmscan.c's is_page_cache_freeable()
> and __remove_mapping() now treat a PageWaiters page as if an extra
> reference were held? Perhaps, but I don't think it matters much, since
> shrink_page_list() already had to win its trylock_page(), so waiters are
> not very common there: I noticed no difference when trying the bigger
> change, and it's surely not needed while put_and_wait_on_page_locked()
> is only used for page migration.
>
> Reported-and-tested-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
> ---
> include/linux/pagemap.h | 2 ++
> mm/filemap.c | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> mm/huge_memory.c | 6 ++--
> mm/migrate.c | 12 +++----
> mm/vmscan.c | 10 ++----
> 5 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>

/**
* put_and_wait_on_page_locked - Drop a reference and wait for it to be unlocked
* @page: The page to wait for.
*
* The caller should hold a reference on @page. They expect the page to
* become unlocked relatively soon, but do not wish to hold up migration
* (for example) by holding the reference while waiting for the page to
* come unlocked. After this function returns, the caller should not
* dereference @page.
*/

(improvements gratefully received)

> +void put_and_wait_on_page_locked(struct page *page)
> +{
> + wait_queue_head_t *q;
> +
> + page = compound_head(page);
> + q = page_waitqueue(page);
> + wait_on_page_bit_common(q, page, PG_locked, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, DROP);
> +}
> +
> /**
> * add_page_wait_queue - Add an arbitrary waiter to a page's wait queue
> * @page: Page defining the wait queue of interest

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-26 21:55    [W:0.187 / U:0.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site