On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:22 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 07:30:13PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 7:02 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 10:50:23AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > > > @@ -3711,11 +3711,6 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > > > if (!pte_unmap_same(vmf))
> > > > goto out;
> > > >
> > > > - if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK) {
> > > > - ret = VM_FAULT_RETRY;
> > > > - goto out;
> > > > - }
> > > > -
> > > > entry = pte_to_swp_entry(vmf->orig_pte);
> > > > if (unlikely(non_swap_entry(entry))) {
> > > > if (is_migration_entry(entry)) {
> > >
> > > You're missing the necessary fallback in the (!folio) case.
> > > swap_readpage() is synchronous and will sleep.
> >
> > True, but is it unsafe to do that under VMA lock and has to be done
> > under mmap_lock?
>
> ... you were the one arguing that we didn't want to wait for I/O with
> the VMA lock held?
Well, that discussion was about waiting in folio_lock_or_retry() with
the lock being held. I argued against it because currently we drop
mmap_lock lock before waiting, so if we don't drop VMA lock we would
be changing the current behavior which might introduce new
regressions. In the case of swap_readpage and swapin_readahead we
already wait with mmap_lock held, so waiting with VMA lock held does
not introduce new problems (unless there is a need to hold mmap_lock).
That said, you are absolutely correct that this situation can be
improved by dropping the lock in these cases too. I just didn't want
to attack everything at once. I believe after we agree on the approach
implemented in https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230501175025.36233-3-surenb@xxxxxxxxxx
for dropping the VMA lock before waiting, these cases can be added
easier. Does that make sense?
