On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:30 AM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 06:53:07PM -0300, Mauricio Faria de Oliveira wrote:
> >>> Hi Minchan Kim,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for handling the hard questions! :)
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 2:33 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 09:46:23AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >>> > > Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 08:34:40PM -0300, Mauricio Faria de Oliveira wrote:
> >>> > > >> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> >>> > > >> index 163ac4e6bcee..8671de473c25 100644
> >>> > > >> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> >>> > > >> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> >>> > > >> @@ -1570,7 +1570,20 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> /* MADV_FREE page check */
> >>> > > >> if (!PageSwapBacked(page)) {
> >>> > > >> - if (!PageDirty(page)) {
> >>> > > >> + int ref_count = page_ref_count(page);
> >>> > > >> + int map_count = page_mapcount(page);
> >>> > > >> +
> >>> > > >> + /*
> >>> > > >> + * The only page refs must be from the isolation
> >>> > > >> + * (checked by the caller shrink_page_list() too)
> >>> > > >> + * and one or more rmap's (dropped by discard:).
> >>> > > >> + *
> >>> > > >> + * Check the reference count before dirty flag
> >>> > > >> + * with memory barrier; see __remove_mapping().
> >>> > > >> + */
> >>> > > >> + smp_rmb();
> >>> > > >> + if ((ref_count - 1 == map_count) &&
> >>> > > >> + !PageDirty(page)) {
> >>> > > >> /* Invalidate as we cleared the pte */
> >>> > > >> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(mm,
> >>> > > >> address, address + PAGE_SIZE);
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Out of curiosity, how does it work with COW in terms of reordering?
> >>> > > > Specifically, it seems to me get_page() and page_dup_rmap() in
> >>> > > > copy_present_pte() can happen in any order, and if page_dup_rmap()
> >>> > > > is seen first, and direct io is holding a refcnt, this check can still
> >>> > > > pass?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I think that you are correct.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > After more thoughts, it appears very tricky to compare page count and
> >>> > > map count. Even if we have added smp_rmb() between page_ref_count() and
> >>> > > page_mapcount(), an interrupt may happen between them. During the
> >>> > > interrupt, the page count and map count may be changed, for example,
> >>> > > unmapped, or do_swap_page().
> >>> >
> >>> > Yeah, it happens but what specific problem are you concerning from the
> >>> > count change under race? The fork case Yu pointed out was already known
> >>> > for breaking DIO so user should take care not to fork under DIO(Please
> >>> > look at O_DIRECT section in man 2 open). If you could give a specific
> >>> > example, it would be great to think over the issue.
> >>> >
> >>> > I agree it's little tricky but it seems to be way other place has used
> >>> > for a long time(Please look at write_protect_page in ksm.c).
> >>>
> >>> Ah, that's great to see it's being used elsewhere, for DIO particularly!
> >>>
> >>> > So, here what we missing is tlb flush before the checking.
> >>>
> >>> That shouldn't be required for this particular issue/case, IIUIC.
> >>> One of the things we checked early on was disabling deferred TLB flush
> >>> (similarly to what you've done), and it didn't help with the issue; also, the
> >>> issue happens on uniprocessor mode too (thus no remote CPU involved.)
> >>
> >> I guess you didn't try it with page_mapcount + 1 == page_count at tha
> >> time? Anyway, I agree we don't need TLB flush here like KSM.
> >> I think the reason KSM is doing TLB flush before the check it to
> >> make sure trap trigger on the write from userprocess in other core.
> >> However, this MADV_FREE case, HW already gaurantees the trap.
> >> Please see below.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > Something like this.
> >>> >
> >>> > diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> >>> > index b0fd9dc19eba..b4ad9faa17b2 100644
> >>> > --- a/mm/rmap.c
> >>> > +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> >>> > @@ -1599,18 +1599,8 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >>> >
> >>> > /* MADV_FREE page check */
> >>> > if (!PageSwapBacked(page)) {
> >>> > - int refcount = page_ref_count(page);
> >>> > -
> >>> > - /*
> >>> > - * The only page refs must be from the isolation
> >>> > - * (checked by the caller shrink_page_list() too)
> >>> > - * and the (single) rmap (dropped by discard:).
> >>> > - *
> >>> > - * Check the reference count before dirty flag
> >>> > - * with memory barrier; see __remove_mapping().
> >>> > - */
> >>> > - smp_rmb();
> >>> > - if (refcount == 2 && !PageDirty(page)) {
> >>> > + if (!PageDirty(page) &&
> >>> > + page_mapcount(page) + 1 == page_count(page)) {
> >>>
> >>> In the interest of avoiding a different race/bug, it seemed worth following the
> >>> suggestion outlined in __remove_mapping(), i.e., checking PageDirty()
> >>> after the page's reference count, with a memory barrier in between.
> >>
> >> True so it means your patch as-is is good for me.
> >
> > If my understanding were correct, a shared anonymous page will be mapped
> > read-only. If so, will a private anonymous page be called
> > SetPageDirty() concurrently after direct IO case has been dealt with
> > via comparing page_count()/page_mapcount()?
>
> Sorry, I found that I am not quite right here. When direct IO read
> completes, it will call SetPageDirty() and put_page() finally. And
> MADV_FREE in try_to_unmap_one() needs to deal with that too.
>
> Checking direct IO code, it appears that set_page_dirty_lock() is used
> to set page dirty, which will use lock_page().
>
> dio_bio_complete
> bio_check_pages_dirty
> bio_dirty_fn /* through workqueue */
> bio_release_pages
> set_page_dirty_lock
> bio_release_pages
> set_page_dirty_lock
>
> So in theory, for direct IO, the memory barrier may be unnecessary. But
> I don't think it's a good idea to depend on this specific behavior of
> direct IO. The original code with memory barrier looks more generic and
> I don't think it will introduce visible overhead.
>
Thanks for all the considerations/thought process with potential corner cases!
Regarding the overhead, agreed; and this is in memory reclaim which isn't a
fast path (and even if it's under direct reclaim, things have slowed
down already),
so that would seem to be fine.
cheers,
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
--
Mauricio Faria de Oliveira
