Hi Anshuman,
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 03:10:17PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 03/06/2017 07:39 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 05:13:54PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >> On 03/02/2017 12:09 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >>> try_to_munlock returns SWAP_MLOCK if the one of VMAs mapped
> >>> the page has VM_LOCKED flag. In that time, VM set PG_mlocked to
> >>> the page if the page is not pte-mapped THP which cannot be
> >>> mlocked, either.
> >>
> >> Right.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> With that, __munlock_isolated_page can use PageMlocked to check
> >>> whether try_to_munlock is successful or not without relying on
> >>> try_to_munlock's retval. It helps to make ttu/ttuo simple with
> >>> upcoming patches.
> >>
> >> Right.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> >>> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/linux/rmap.h | 2 +-
> >>> mm/mlock.c | 6 ++----
> >>> mm/rmap.c | 16 ++++------------
> >>> 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
> >>> index b556eef..1b0cd4c 100644
> >>> --- a/include/linux/rmap.h
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
> >>> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ int page_mkclean(struct page *);
> >>> * called in munlock()/munmap() path to check for other vmas holding
> >>> * the page mlocked.
> >>> */
> >>> -int try_to_munlock(struct page *);
> >>> +void try_to_munlock(struct page *);
> >>>
> >>> void remove_migration_ptes(struct page *old, struct page *new, bool locked);
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/mm/mlock.c b/mm/mlock.c
> >>> index cdbed8a..d34a540 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/mlock.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> >>> @@ -122,17 +122,15 @@ static bool __munlock_isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, bool getpage)
> >>> */
> >>> static void __munlock_isolated_page(struct page *page)
> >>> {
> >>> - int ret = SWAP_AGAIN;
> >>> -
> >>> /*
> >>> * Optimization: if the page was mapped just once, that's our mapping
> >>> * and we don't need to check all the other vmas.
> >>> */
> >>> if (page_mapcount(page) > 1)
> >>> - ret = try_to_munlock(page);
> >>> + try_to_munlock(page);
> >>>
> >>> /* Did try_to_unlock() succeed or punt? */
> >>> - if (ret != SWAP_MLOCK)
> >>> + if (!PageMlocked(page))
> >>
> >> Checks if the page is still mlocked or not.
> >>
> >>> count_vm_event(UNEVICTABLE_PGMUNLOCKED);
> >>>
> >>> putback_lru_page(page);
> >>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> >>> index 0a48958..61ae694 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> >>> @@ -1540,18 +1540,10 @@ static int page_not_mapped(struct page *page)
> >>> * Called from munlock code. Checks all of the VMAs mapping the page
> >>> * to make sure nobody else has this page mlocked. The page will be
> >>> * returned with PG_mlocked cleared if no other vmas have it mlocked.
> >>> - *
> >>> - * Return values are:
> >>> - *
> >>> - * SWAP_AGAIN - no vma is holding page mlocked, or,
> >>> - * SWAP_AGAIN - page mapped in mlocked vma -- couldn't acquire mmap sem
> >>> - * SWAP_FAIL - page cannot be located at present
> >>> - * SWAP_MLOCK - page is now mlocked.
> >>> */
> >>> -int try_to_munlock(struct page *page)
> >>> -{
> >>> - int ret;
> >>>
> >>> +void try_to_munlock(struct page *page)
> >>> +{
> >>> struct rmap_walk_control rwc = {
> >>> .rmap_one = try_to_unmap_one,
> >>> .arg = (void *)TTU_MUNLOCK,
> >>> @@ -1561,9 +1553,9 @@ int try_to_munlock(struct page *page)
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLocked(page) || PageLRU(page), page);
> >>> + VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageMlocked(page), page);
> >>
> >> We are calling on the page to see if its mlocked from any of it's
> >> mapping VMAs. Then it is a possibility that the page is mlocked
> >> and the above condition is true and we print VM BUG report there.
> >> The point is if its a valid possibility why we have added the
> >> above check ?
> >
> > If I read code properly, __munlock_isolated_page calls try_to_munlock
> > always pass the TestClearPageMlocked page to try_to_munlock.
>
> Right.
>
> > (e.g., munlock_vma_page and __munlock_pagevec) so I thought
> > try_to_munlock should be called non-PG_mlocked page and try_to_unmap_one
> > returns PG_mlocked page once it found a VM_LOCKED VMA for a page.
> > IOW, non-PG_mlocked page is precondition for try_to_munlock.
>
> Okay, I have missed that part. Nonetheless this is a separate issue,
> should be part of a different patch ? Not inside these cleanups.
If that precondition is not true, this patch changes the behavior
slightly.
UNEVICTABLE_PGMUNLOCKED count mistmatch compared to old.
I wanted to catch it up. If you still think it's separate issue,
I will do. Please tell me. However, I still think it's no problem
to merge it in this clean up patch.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
