lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm -v4 03/21] mm, THP, swap: Support PMD swap mapping in swap_duplicate()
Date
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> writes:

>> +static inline bool thp_swap_supported(void)
>> +{
>> + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_THP_SWAP);
>> +}
>
> This seems like rather useless abstraction. Why do we need it?

I just want to make it shorter, 19 vs 27 characters. But if you think
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_THP_SWAP) is much better, I can use that instead.

> ...
>> -static inline int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t swp)
>> +static inline int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t *swp, bool cluster)
>> {
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> FWIW, I despise true/false function arguments like this. When I see
> this in code:
>
> swap_duplicate(&entry, false);
>
> I have no idea what false does. I'd much rather see:
>
> enum do_swap_cluster {
> SWP_DO_CLUSTER,
> SWP_NO_CLUSTER
> };
>
> So you see:
>
> swap_duplicate(&entry, SWP_NO_CLUSTER);
>
> vs.
>
> swap_duplicate(&entry, SWP_DO_CLUSTER);
>

Yes. Boolean parameter isn't good at most times. Matthew Wilcox
suggested to use

swap_duplicate(&entry, HPAGE_PMD_NR);

vs.

swap_duplicate(&entry, 1);

He thinks this makes the interface more flexible to support other swap
entry size in the future. What do you think about that?

>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>> index e9cac1c4fa69..f3900282e3da 100644
>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>> @@ -951,7 +951,7 @@ copy_one_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
>> swp_entry_t entry = pte_to_swp_entry(pte);
>>
>> if (likely(!non_swap_entry(entry))) {
>> - if (swap_duplicate(entry) < 0)
>> + if (swap_duplicate(&entry, false) < 0)
>> return entry.val;
>>
>> /* make sure dst_mm is on swapoff's mmlist. */
>
> I'll also point out that in a multi-hundred-line patch, adding arguments
> to a existing function would not be something I'd try to include in the
> patch. I'd break it out separately unless absolutely necessary.

You mean add another patch, which only adds arguments to the function,
but not change the body of the function?

>> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
>> index f42b1b0cdc58..48e2c54385ee 100644
>> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
>> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
>> @@ -49,6 +49,9 @@ static bool swap_count_continued(struct swap_info_struct *, pgoff_t,
>> unsigned char);
>> static void free_swap_count_continuations(struct swap_info_struct *);
>> static sector_t map_swap_entry(swp_entry_t, struct block_device**);
>> +static int add_swap_count_continuation_locked(struct swap_info_struct *si,
>> + unsigned long offset,
>> + struct page *page);
>>
>> DEFINE_SPINLOCK(swap_lock);
>> static unsigned int nr_swapfiles;
>> @@ -319,6 +322,11 @@ static inline void unlock_cluster_or_swap_info(struct swap_info_struct *si,
>> spin_unlock(&si->lock);
>> }
>>
>> +static inline bool is_cluster_offset(unsigned long offset)
>> +{
>> + return !(offset % SWAPFILE_CLUSTER);
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline bool cluster_list_empty(struct swap_cluster_list *list)
>> {
>> return cluster_is_null(&list->head);
>> @@ -1166,16 +1174,14 @@ struct swap_info_struct *get_swap_device(swp_entry_t entry)
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> -static unsigned char __swap_entry_free(struct swap_info_struct *p,
>> - swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage)
>> +static unsigned char __swap_entry_free_locked(struct swap_info_struct *p,
>> + struct swap_cluster_info *ci,
>> + unsigned long offset,
>> + unsigned char usage)
>> {
>> - struct swap_cluster_info *ci;
>> - unsigned long offset = swp_offset(entry);
>> unsigned char count;
>> unsigned char has_cache;
>>
>> - ci = lock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, offset);
>> -
>> count = p->swap_map[offset];
>>
>> has_cache = count & SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
>> @@ -1203,6 +1209,17 @@ static unsigned char __swap_entry_free(struct swap_info_struct *p,
>> usage = count | has_cache;
>> p->swap_map[offset] = usage ? : SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
>>
>> + return usage;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static unsigned char __swap_entry_free(struct swap_info_struct *p,
>> + swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage)
>> +{
>> + struct swap_cluster_info *ci;
>> + unsigned long offset = swp_offset(entry);
>> +
>> + ci = lock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, offset);
>> + usage = __swap_entry_free_locked(p, ci, offset, usage);
>> unlock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, ci);
>>
>> return usage;
>> @@ -3450,32 +3467,12 @@ void si_swapinfo(struct sysinfo *val)
>> spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
>> }
>>
>> -/*
>> - * Verify that a swap entry is valid and increment its swap map count.
>> - *
>> - * Returns error code in following case.
>> - * - success -> 0
>> - * - swp_entry is invalid -> EINVAL
>> - * - swp_entry is migration entry -> EINVAL
>> - * - swap-cache reference is requested but there is already one. -> EEXIST
>> - * - swap-cache reference is requested but the entry is not used. -> ENOENT
>> - * - swap-mapped reference requested but needs continued swap count. -> ENOMEM
>> - */
>> -static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage)
>> +static int __swap_duplicate_locked(struct swap_info_struct *p,
>> + unsigned long offset, unsigned char usage)
>> {
>> - struct swap_info_struct *p;
>> - struct swap_cluster_info *ci;
>> - unsigned long offset;
>> unsigned char count;
>> unsigned char has_cache;
>> - int err = -EINVAL;
>> -
>> - p = get_swap_device(entry);
>> - if (!p)
>> - goto out;
>> -
>> - offset = swp_offset(entry);
>> - ci = lock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, offset);
>> + int err = 0;
>>
>> count = p->swap_map[offset];
>>
>> @@ -3485,12 +3482,11 @@ static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage)
>> */
>> if (unlikely(swap_count(count) == SWAP_MAP_BAD)) {
>> err = -ENOENT;
>> - goto unlock_out;
>> + goto out;
>> }
>>
>> has_cache = count & SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
>> count &= ~SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
>> - err = 0;
>>
>> if (usage == SWAP_HAS_CACHE) {
>>
>> @@ -3517,11 +3513,39 @@ static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage)
>>
>> p->swap_map[offset] = count | has_cache;
>>
>> -unlock_out:
>> +out:
>> + return err;
>> +}
>
> ... and that all looks like refactoring, not actively implementing PMD
> swap support. That's unfortunate.
>
>> +/*
>> + * Verify that a swap entry is valid and increment its swap map count.
>> + *
>> + * Returns error code in following case.
>> + * - success -> 0
>> + * - swp_entry is invalid -> EINVAL
>> + * - swp_entry is migration entry -> EINVAL
>> + * - swap-cache reference is requested but there is already one. -> EEXIST
>> + * - swap-cache reference is requested but the entry is not used. -> ENOENT
>> + * - swap-mapped reference requested but needs continued swap count. -> ENOMEM
>> + */
>> +static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage)
>> +{
>> + struct swap_info_struct *p;
>> + struct swap_cluster_info *ci;
>> + unsigned long offset;
>> + int err = -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + p = get_swap_device(entry);
>> + if (!p)
>> + goto out;
>
> Is this an error, or just for running into something like a migration
> entry? Comments please.

__swap_duplicate() may be called with invalid swap entry because the swap
device may be swapoff after we get swap entry during page fault. Yes, I
will add some comments here.

>> + offset = swp_offset(entry);
>> + ci = lock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, offset);
>> + err = __swap_duplicate_locked(p, offset, usage);
>> unlock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, ci);
>> +
>> + put_swap_device(p);
>> out:
>> - if (p)
>> - put_swap_device(p);
>> return err;
>> }
>
> Not a comment on this patch, but lock_cluster_or_swap_info() is woefully
> uncommented.

OK. Will add some comments for that.

>> @@ -3534,6 +3558,81 @@ void swap_shmem_alloc(swp_entry_t entry)
>> __swap_duplicate(entry, SWAP_MAP_SHMEM);
>> }
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_THP_SWAP
>> +static int __swap_duplicate_cluster(swp_entry_t *entry, unsigned char usage)
>> +{
>> + struct swap_info_struct *si;
>> + struct swap_cluster_info *ci;
>> + unsigned long offset;
>> + unsigned char *map;
>> + int i, err = 0;
>
> Instead of an #ifdef, is there a reason we can't just do:
>
> if (!IS_ENABLED(THP_SWAP))
> return 0;
>
> ?

Good idea. Will do this for the whole patchset.

>> + si = get_swap_device(*entry);
>> + if (!si) {
>> + err = -EINVAL;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> + offset = swp_offset(*entry);
>> + ci = lock_cluster(si, offset);
>
> Could you explain a bit why we do lock_cluster() and not
> lock_cluster_or_swap_info() here?

The code size of lock_cluster() is a little smaller, and I think it is a
little easier to read. But I know lock_cluster_or_swap_info() can be used
here without functionality problems. If we try to merge the code for
huge and normal swap entry, that could be used.

>> + if (cluster_is_free(ci)) {
>> + err = -ENOENT;
>> + goto unlock;
>> + }
>
> Needs comments on how this could happen. We just took the lock, so I
> assume this is some kind of race, but can you elaborate?

Sure. Will add some comments for this.

>> + if (!cluster_is_huge(ci)) {
>> + err = -ENOTDIR;
>> + goto unlock;
>> + }
>
> Yikes! This function is the core of the new functionality and its
> comment count is exactly 0. There was quite a long patch description,
> which will be surely lost to the ages, but nothing in the code that
> folks _will_ be looking at for decades to come.
>
> Can we fix that?

Sure. Will add more comments.

>> + VM_BUG_ON(!is_cluster_offset(offset));
>> + VM_BUG_ON(cluster_count(ci) < SWAPFILE_CLUSTER);
>
> So, by this point, we know we are looking at (or supposed to be looking
> at) a cluster on the device?

Yes.

>> + map = si->swap_map + offset;
>> + if (usage == SWAP_HAS_CACHE) {
>> + if (map[0] & SWAP_HAS_CACHE) {
>> + err = -EEXIST;
>> + goto unlock;
>> + }
>> + for (i = 0; i < SWAPFILE_CLUSTER; i++) {
>> + VM_BUG_ON(map[i] & SWAP_HAS_CACHE);
>> + map[i] |= SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
>> + }
>
> So, it's OK to race with the first entry, but after that it's a bug
> because the tail pages should agree with the head page's state?

Yes. Will add some comments about this.

>> + } else {
>> + for (i = 0; i < SWAPFILE_CLUSTER; i++) {
>> +retry:
>> + err = __swap_duplicate_locked(si, offset + i, usage);
>> + if (err == -ENOMEM) {
>> + struct page *page;
>> +
>> + page = alloc_page(GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
>
> I noticed that the non-clustering analog of this function takes a GFP
> mask. Why not this one?

The value of gfp_mask is GFP_ATOMIC in swap_duplicate(), so they are
exactly same.

>> + err = add_swap_count_continuation_locked(
>> + si, offset + i, page);
>> + if (err) {
>> + *entry = swp_entry(si->type, offset+i);
>> + goto undup;
>> + }
>> + goto retry;
>> + } else if (err)
>> + goto undup;
>> + }
>> + cluster_set_count(ci, cluster_count(ci) + usage);
>> + }
>> +unlock:
>> + unlock_cluster(ci);
>> + put_swap_device(si);
>> +out:
>> + return err;
>> +undup:
>> + for (i--; i >= 0; i--)
>> + __swap_entry_free_locked(
>> + si, ci, offset + i, usage);
>> + goto unlock;
>> +}
>
> So, we've basically created a fork of the __swap_duplicate() code for
> huge pages, along with a presumably new set of bugs and a second code
> path to update. Was this unavoidable? Can we unify this any more with
> the small pages path?

Will discuss this in another thread.

>> /*
>> * Increase reference count of swap entry by 1.
>> * Returns 0 for success, or -ENOMEM if a swap_count_continuation is required
>> @@ -3541,12 +3640,15 @@ void swap_shmem_alloc(swp_entry_t entry)
>> * if __swap_duplicate() fails for another reason (-EINVAL or -ENOENT), which
>> * might occur if a page table entry has got corrupted.
>> */
>> -int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry)
>> +int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t *entry, bool cluster)
>> {
>> int err = 0;
>>
>> - while (!err && __swap_duplicate(entry, 1) == -ENOMEM)
>> - err = add_swap_count_continuation(entry, GFP_ATOMIC);
>> + if (thp_swap_supported() && cluster)
>> + return __swap_duplicate_cluster(entry, 1);
>> +
>> + while (!err && __swap_duplicate(*entry, 1) == -ENOMEM)
>> + err = add_swap_count_continuation(*entry, GFP_ATOMIC);
>> return err;
>> }
>
> Reading this, I wonder whether this has been refactored as much as
> possible. Both add_swap_count_continuation() and
> __swap_duplciate_cluster() start off with the same get_swap_device() dance.

Yes. There's some duplicated code logic. Will think about how to
improve it.

>> @@ -3558,9 +3660,12 @@ int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry)
>> * -EBUSY means there is a swap cache.
>> * Note: return code is different from swap_duplicate().
>> */
>> -int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t entry)
>> +int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t entry, bool cluster)
>> {
>> - return __swap_duplicate(entry, SWAP_HAS_CACHE);
>> + if (thp_swap_supported() && cluster)
>> + return __swap_duplicate_cluster(&entry, SWAP_HAS_CACHE);
>> + else
>> + return __swap_duplicate(entry, SWAP_HAS_CACHE);
>> }
>>
>> struct swap_info_struct *swp_swap_info(swp_entry_t entry)
>> @@ -3590,51 +3695,13 @@ pgoff_t __page_file_index(struct page *page)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__page_file_index);
>>
>> -/*
>> - * add_swap_count_continuation - called when a swap count is duplicated
>> - * beyond SWAP_MAP_MAX, it allocates a new page and links that to the entry's
>> - * page of the original vmalloc'ed swap_map, to hold the continuation count
>> - * (for that entry and for its neighbouring PAGE_SIZE swap entries). Called
>> - * again when count is duplicated beyond SWAP_MAP_MAX * SWAP_CONT_MAX, etc.
>
> This closes out with a lot of refactoring noise. Any chance that can be
> isolated into another patch?

Sure. Will do that.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-10 08:46    [W:0.151 / U:1.928 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site