Dev Jain <dev.jain@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On 8/12/24 11:04, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Hi, Dev,
>>
>> Dev Jain <dev.jain@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> As already being done in __migrate_folio(), wherein we backoff if the
>>> folio refcount is wrong, make this check during the unmapping phase, upon
>>> the failure of which, the original state of the PTEs will be restored and
>>> the folio lock will be dropped via migrate_folio_undo_src(), any racing
>>> thread will make progress and migration will be retried.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> mm/migrate.c | 9 +++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
>>> index e7296c0fb5d5..477acf996951 100644
>>> --- a/mm/migrate.c
>>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
>>> @@ -1250,6 +1250,15 @@ static int migrate_folio_unmap(new_folio_t get_new_folio,
>>> }
>>> if (!folio_mapped(src)) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * Someone may have changed the refcount and maybe sleeping
>>> + * on the folio lock. In case of refcount mismatch, bail out,
>>> + * let the system make progress and retry.
>>> + */
>>> + struct address_space *mapping = folio_mapping(src);
>>> +
>>> + if (folio_ref_count(src) != folio_expected_refs(mapping, src))
>>> + goto out;
>>> __migrate_folio_record(dst, old_page_state, anon_vma);
>>> return MIGRATEPAGE_UNMAP;
>>> }
>> Do you have some test results for this? For example, after applying the
>> patch, the migration success rate increased XX%, etc.
>
> Noting that the migration selftest is operating on a single page,
> before the patch, the test fails on shared-anon mappings on an
> average of 10 iterations of move_pages(), and after applying the
> patch it fails on average of 100 iterations, which makes sense
> because the unmapping() will get retried 3 + 7 = 10 times.
Thanks! What is the test results for
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240801081657.1386743-1-dev.jain@xxxxxxx/
?
>>
>> My understanding for this issue is that the migration success rate can
>> increase if we undo all changes before retrying. This is the current
>> behavior for sync migration, but not for async migration. If so, we can
>> use migrate_pages_sync() for async migration too to increase success
>> rate? Of course, we need to change the function name and comments.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
