On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:49:39PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:17:22PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 05:50:55PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 05:25:31PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:12:48PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 01:35:36PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:24:42PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_IDLE_PAGE_TRACKING
> > > > > > > +static struct page *kpageidle_get_page(unsigned long pfn)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > + struct page *page;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
> > > > > > > + return NULL;
> > > > > > > + page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> > > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > > + * We are only interested in user memory pages, i.e. pages that
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > + * allocated and on an LRU list.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > + if (!page || page_count(page) == 0 || !PageLRU(page))
> > > > > > > + return NULL;
> > > > > > > + if (!get_page_unless_zero(page))
> > > > > > > + return NULL;
> > > > > > > + if (unlikely(!PageLRU(page))) {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What lock protect the check PageLRU?
> > > > > > If it is racing ClearPageLRU, what happens?
> > > > >
> > > > > If we hold a reference to a page and see that it's on an LRU list, it
> > > > > will surely remain a user memory page at least until we release the
> > > > > reference to it, so it must be safe to play with idle/young flags. If
> > > > > we
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that you pass the page in rmap reverse logic(ie,
> > > > page_referenced)
> > > > once you judge it's LRU page so if it is false-positive, what happens?
> > > > A question is SetPageLRU, PageLRU, ClearPageLRU keeps memory ordering?
> > > > IOW, all of fields from struct page rmap can acccess should be set up
> > > > completely
> > > > before LRU checking. Otherwise, something will be broken.
> > >
> > > So, basically you are concerned about the case when we encounter a
> > > freshly allocated page, which has PG_lru bit set and it's going to
> > > become anonymous, but it is still in the process of rmap initialization,
> > > i.e. its ->mapping or ->mapcount may still be uninitialized, right?
> > >
> > > AFAICS, page_referenced should handle such pages fine. Look, it only
> > > needs ->index, ->mapping, and ->mapcount.
> > >
> > > If ->mapping is unset, than it is NULL and rmap_walk_anon_lock ->
> > > page_lock_anon_vma_read will return NULL so that rmap_walk will be a
> > > no-op.
> > >
> > > If ->index is not initialized, than at worst we will go to
> > > anon_vma_interval_tree_foreach over a wrong interval, in which case we
> > > will see that the page is actually not mapped in page_referenced_one ->
> > > page_check_address and again do nothing.
> > >
> > > If ->mapcount is not initialized it is -1, and page_lock_anon_vma_read
> > > will return NULL, just as it does in case ->mapping = NULL.
> > >
> > > For file pages, we always take PG_locked before checking ->mapping, so
> > > it must be valid.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Vladimir
> >
> >
> > do_anonymous_page
> > page_add_new_anon_rmap
> > atomic_set(&page->_mapcount, 0);
> > __page_set_anon_rmap
> > anon_vma = (void *) anon_vma + PAGE_MAPPING_ANON;
> > page->mapping = (struct address_space *) anon_vma;
> > page->index = linear_page_index(vma, address);
> > lru_cache_add
> > __pagevec_lru_add_fn
> > SetPageLRU(page);
> >
> > During the procedure, there is no lock to prevent race. Then, at least,
> > we need a write memory barrier to guarantee other fields set up before
> > SetPageLRU. (Of course, PageLRU should have read-memory barrier to work
> > well) But I can't find any barrier, either.
> >
> > IOW, any fields you said could be out of order store without any lock or
> > memory barrier. You might argue atomic op is a barrier on x86 but it
> > doesn't guarantee other arches work like that so we need explict momory
> > barrier or lock.
> >
> > Let's have a theoretical example.
> >
> > CPU 0
> > CPU 1
> >
> > do_anonymous_page
> > __page_set_anon_rmap
> > /* out of order happened so SetPageLRU is done ahead */
> > SetPageLRU(page)
> > /* Compilr changed store operation like below */
>
> But it couldn't. Quoting Documentation/atomic_ops.txt:
>
> Properly aligned pointers, longs, ints, and chars (and unsigned
> equivalents) may be atomically loaded from and stored to in the same
> sense as described for atomic_read() and atomic_set().
>
> __page_set_anon_rmap sets page->mapping using the following expression:
>
> anon_vma = (void *) anon_vma + PAGE_MAPPING_ANON;
> page->mapping = (struct address_space *) anon_vma;
>
> and it can't be split, i.e. if one concurrently reads page->mapping
> he/she will see either NULL or (anon_vma+PAGE_MAPPING_ANON), and there
> can't be any intermediate result in page->mapping, such as anon_vma or
> PAGE_MAPPING_ANON, because one doesn't expect
>
> atomic_set(&p, a + b);
>
> to behave like
>
> atomic_set(&p, a);
> atomic_set(&p, atomic_read(&p) + b);
When I parsed the documentation, I understand it that each of words
store/load operation is atomically loaded or stored, not forcing to
preventing split.
Hmm, but it's really important part in this patchset's implementation
so I want to confirm during review process.
I don't have a worry even if I am not a expert about that part because
I know other experts. ;-) Ccing them.
What I want to know is as follows,
In do_anonymous_page, there is following peice of code.
page_add_new_anon_rmap
__page_set_anon_rmap
anon_vma = (void *) anon_vma + PAGE_MAPPING_ANON;
page->mapping = (struct address_space *) anon_vma;
lru_cache_add_active_or_unevictable
__lru_cache_add
__pagevec_lru_add_fn
SetPageLRU(page);
>From page->mapping to SetPageLRU, there is no explict lock and memory
barrier.
As counterpart, kpageidle can pass page in page_referenced once it judges
out the page has PG_lru with PageLRU check but my concern is that it
judges without any lock or barrier like below.
static struct page *kpageidle_get_page(unsigned long pfn)
{
struct page *page;
if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
return NULL;
page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
/*
* We are only interested in user memory pages, i.e. pages that are
* allocated and on an LRU list.
*/
if (!page || page_count(page) == 0 || !PageLRU(page))
return NULL;
if (!get_page_unless_zero(page))
return NULL;
if (unlikely(!PageLRU(page))) {
put_page(page);
return NULL;
}
return page;
}
So, I guess once below compiler optimization happens in __page_set_anon_rmap,
it could be corrupt in page_refernced.
__page_set_anon_rmap:
page->mapping = (struct address_space *) anon_vma;
page->mapping = (struct address_space *)((void *)page_mapping +
PAGE_MAPPING_ANON);
Because page_referenced checks it with PageAnon which has no memory barrier.
So if above compiler optimization happens, page_referenced can pass the anon
page in rmap_walk_file, not ramp_walk_anon. It's my theory. :)
But Vladimir said above above compiler optimization cannot happen because
it's aligned pointer and Documentation/atomic_ops.txt said it couldn't happen.
Thanks for looking this.
> > page->mapping = (struct address_space *) anon_vma;
> > /* Big stall happens */
> > /*
> > idletacking judged it as LRU page so pass the page
> > in
> > page_reference */
> >
> > page_refernced
> >
> > page_rmapping return true because
> >
> > page->mapping has some vaule but not complete
> > so
> > it calls rmap_walk_file.
> >
> > it's okay to pass non-completed anon page in rmap_walk_file?
> >
> > page->mapping = (struct address_space *)
> > ((void *)page_mapping + PAGE_MAPPING_ANON);
>
>
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
>
> > page->mapping = (struct address_space *) anon_vma;
> > /* Big stall happens */
> > /*
> > idletacking judged it as LRU page so pass the page
> > in
> > page_reference */
> >
> > page_refernced
> >
> > page_rmapping return true because
> >
> > page->mapping has some vaule but not complete
> > so
> > it calls rmap_walk_file.
> >
> > it's okay to pass non-completed anon page in rmap_walk_file?
> >
> > page->mapping = (struct address_space *)
> > ((void *)page_mapping + PAGE_MAPPING_ANON);
> >
> > It's too theoretical so it might be hard to happen in real practice.
> > My point is there is nothing to prevent explict race.
> > Even if there is no problem with other lock, it's fragile.
> > Do I miss something?
> >
> > I think general way to handle PageLRU are ahead isolation or zone->lru_lock.
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
