Miscellaneous Acks and NAKs and other comments on the beginning and
the end of the series, but not much yet on the all-important middle.
I'm hoping to be spared sending ~20 email replies to ~20 patches.
[PATCH v18 01/32] mm/memcg: warning on !memcg after readahead page charged
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
if you make these changes:
Please add "Add VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE() macro." or something like that to
the commit message: that's a good addition that we shall find useful in
other places, so please advertise it.
Delete the four comment lines
/* Readahead page is charged too, to see if other page uncharged */
which make no sense on their own.
[PATCH v18 02/32] mm/memcg: bail out early from swap accounting when memcg is disabled
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
[PATCH v18 03/32] mm/thp: move lru_add_page_tail func to huge_memory.c
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
[PATCH v18 04/32] mm/thp: clean up lru_add_page_tail
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Though I'd prefer "mm/thp: use head for head page in lru_add_page_tail"
to the unnecessarily vague "clean up". But you're right to keep this
renaming separate from the code movement in the previous commit, and
perhaps right to keep it from the more interesting cleanup next.
[PATCH v18 05/32] mm/thp: remove code path which never got into
This is a good simplification, but I see no sign that you understand
why it's valid: it relies on lru_add_page_tail() being called while
head refcount is frozen to 0: we would not get this far if someone
else holds a reference to the THP - which they must hold if they have
isolated the page from its lru (and that's true before or after your
per-memcg changes - but even truer after those changes, since PageLRU
can then be flipped without lru_lock at any instant): please explain
something of this in the commit message.
You revisit this same code in 18/32, and I much prefer the way it looks
after that (if (list) {} else {}) - this 05/32 is a bit weird, it would
be easier to understand if it just did VM_WARN_ON(1). Please pull the
18/32 mods back into this one, maybe adding a VM_WARN_ON(PageLRU) into
the "if (list)" block too.
[PATCH v18 18/32] mm/thp: add tail pages into lru anyway in split_huge_page()
Please merge into 05/32. But what do "Split_huge_page() must start with
PageLRU(head)" and "Split start from PageLRU(head)" mean? Perhaps you mean
that if list is NULL, then if the head was not on the LRU, then it cannot
have got through page_ref_freeze(), because isolator would hold page ref?
That is subtle, and deserves mention in the commit comment, but is not
what you have said at all. s/unexpected/unexpectedly/.
[PATCH v18 06/32] mm/thp: narrow lru locking
Why? What part does this play in the series? "narrow lru locking" can
also be described as "widen page cache locking": you are changing the
lock ordering, and not giving any reason to do so. This may be an
excellent change, or it may be a terrible change: I find that usually
lock ordering is forced upon us, and it's rare to meet an instance like
this that could go either way, and I don't know myself how to judge it.
I do want this commit to go in, partly because it has been present in
all the testing we have done, and partly because I *can at last* see a
logical advantage to it - it also nests lru_lock inside memcg->move_lock,
allowing lock_page_memcg() to be used to stabilize page->mem_cgroup when
getting per-memcg lru_lock - though only in one place, starting in v17,
do you actually use that (and, warning: it's not used correctly there).
I'm not very bothered by how the local_irq_disable() looks to RT: THP
seems a very bad idea in an RT kernel. Earlier I asked you to run this
past Kirill and Matthew and Johannes: you did so, thank you, and Kirill
has blessed it, and no one has nacked it, and I have not noticed any
disadvantage from this change in lock ordering (documented in 23/32),
so I'm now going to say
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
But I wish you could give some reason for it in the commit message!
Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx>
Is that correct? Or Wei Yang suggested some part of it perhaps?
[PATCH v18 07/32] mm/swap.c: stop deactivate_file_page if page not on lru
Perhaps; or perhaps by the time the pagevec is full, the page has been
drained to the lru, and it should be deactivated? I'm indifferent.
Is this important for per-memcg lru_lock?
[PATCH v18 08/32] mm/vmscan: remove unnecessary lruvec adding
You are optimizing for a case which you then mark unlikely(), and I
don't agree that it makes the flow clearer; but you've added a useful
comment on the race there, so please s/intergrity/integrity/ in commit
message and in code comment, then
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
[PATCH v18 09/32] mm/page_idle: no unlikely double check for idle page counting
I strongly approve of removing the abuse of lru_lock here, but the
patch is wrong: you are mistaken in thinking the PageLRU check after
get_page_unless_zero() is an unnecessary duplicaton of the one before.
No, the one before is an optimization, and the one after is essential,
for telling whether this page (arrived at via pfn, like in compaction)
is the kind of page we understand (address_space or anon_vma or KSM
stable_node pointer in page->mapping), so can use rmap_walk() on.
Please replace this patch by mine from the tarball I posted a year ago,
which keeps both checks, and justifies it against why the lru_lock was
put there in the first place - thanks to Vladimir for pointing me to
that mail thread when I tried to submit this patch a few years ago.
Appended at the end of this mail.
[PATCH v18 10/32] mm/compaction: rename compact_deferred as compact_should_defer
I'm indifferent: I see your point about the name, but it hasn't caused
confusion in ten years, whereas changing name and tracepoint might cause
confusion. And how does changing the name help per-memcg lru_lock? It
just seems to be a random patch from your private tree. If it's Acked
by Mel who coined the name, or someone who has done a lot of work there
(Vlastimil? Joonsoo?), fine, I have no problem with it; but I don't
see what it's doing in this series - better left out.
[PATCH v18 11/32] mm/memcg: add debug checking in lock_page_memcg
This is a very useful change for helping lockdep:
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
[PATCH v18 12/32] mm/memcg: optimize mem_cgroup_page_lruvec
Hah, I see this is in my name. Well, I did once suggest folding this
into one of your patches, but it's not an optimization, and that was
before you added VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE() here. It looks strange now,
a VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() next to a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(); and the latter
will catch that PageTail case anyway (once). And although I feel
slightly safer with READ_ONCE(page->mem_cgroup), I'm finding it hard
to justify, doing so here but not in other places: particularly since
just above it says "This function relies on page->mem_cgroup being
stable". Let's just drop this patch.
[PATCH v18 13/32] mm/swap.c: fold vm event PGROTATED into pagevec_move_tail_fn
Yes, nice cleanup, I don't see why it should be different and force an
unused arg on the others. But I have one reservation: you added comment
+ *
+ * pagevec_move_tail_fn() must be called with IRQ disabled.
+ * Otherwise this may cause nasty races.
above rotate_reclaimable_page(), having deleted pagevec_move_tail() which
had such a comment. It doesn't make sense, because pagevec_move_tail_fn()
is called with IRQ disabled anyway. That comment had better say
+ *
+ * rotate_reclaimable_page() must disable IRQs, to prevent nasty races.
I dimly remember hitting those nasty races many years ago, but forget
the details. Oh, one other thing, you like to use "func" as abbreviation
for "function", okay: but then at the end of the commit message you say
"no func change" - please change that to "No functional change".
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
[PATCH v18 14/32] mm/lru: move lru_lock holding in func lru_note_cost_page
"w/o functional changes" instead of "w/o function changes". But please
just merge this into the next, 15/32: there is no point in separating them.
[PATCH v18 15/32] mm/lru: move lock into lru_note_cost
[PATCH v18 16/32] mm/lru: introduce TestClearPageLRU
[PATCH v18 17/32] mm/compaction: do page isolation first in compaction
[PATCH v18 19/32] mm/swap.c: serialize memcg changes in pagevec_lru_move_fn
[PATCH v18 20/32] mm/lru: replace pgdat lru_lock with lruvec lock
[PATCH v18 21/32] mm/lru: introduce the relock_page_lruvec function
[PATCH v18 22/32] mm/vmscan: use relock for move_pages_to_lru
[PATCH v18 23/32] mm/lru: revise the comments of lru_lock
[PATCH v18 24/32] mm/pgdat: remove pgdat lru_lock
[PATCH v18 25/32] mm/mlock: remove lru_lock on TestClearPageMlocked in munlock_vma_page
[PATCH v18 26/32] mm/mlock: remove __munlock_isolate_lru_page
I have tested, but not yet studied these, and it's a good point to break
off and send my comments so far, because 15/32 is where the cleanups end
and per-memcg lru_lock kind-of begins - lru_note_cost() being potentially
more costly, because it needs to use a different lock at each level.
(When I tried rebasing my own series a couple of months ago, I stopped
here at lru_note_cost() too, wondering if there was a better way.)
Two things I do know about from testing, that need to be corrected:
check_move_unevictable_pages() needs protection from page->memcg
being changed while doing the relock_page_lruvec_irq(): could use
TestClearPageLRU there (!PageLRU pages are safely skipped), but
that doubles the number of atomic ops involved. I intended to use
lock_page_memcg() instead, but that's harder than you'd expect: so
probably TestClearPageLRU will be the best to use there for now.
The use of lock_page_memcg() in __munlock_pagevec() in 20/32,
introduced in patchset v17, looks good but it isn't: I was lucky that
systemd at reboot did some munlocking that exposed the problem to lockdep.
The first time into the loop, lock_page_memcg() is done before lru_lock
(as 06/32 has allowed); but the second time around the loop, it is done
while still holding lru_lock.
lock_page_memcg() really needs to be absorbed into (a variant of)
relock_page_lruvec(), and I do have that (it's awkward because of
the different ways in which the IRQ flags are handled). And out of
curiosity, I've also tried using that in mm/swap.c too, instead of the
TestClearPageLRU technique: lockdep is happy, but an update_lru_size()
warning showed that it cannot safely be mixed with the TestClearPageLRU
technique (that I'd left in isolate_lru_page()). So I'll stash away
that relock_page_lruvec(), and consider what's best for mm/mlock.c:
now that I've posted these comments so far, that's my priority, then
to get the result under testing again, before resuming these comments.
Jumping over 15-26, and resuming comments on recent additions:
[PATCH v18 27/32] mm/swap.c: optimizing __pagevec_lru_add lru_lock
Could we please drop this one for the moment? And come back to it later
when the basic series is safely in. It's a good idea to try sorting
together those pages which come under the same lock (though my guess is
that they naturally gather themselves together quite well already); but
I'm not happy adding 360 bytes to the kernel stack here (and that in
addition to 192 bytes of horrid pseudo-vma in the shmem swapin case),
though that could be avoided by making it per-cpu. But I hope there's
a simpler way of doing it, as efficient, but also useful for the other
pagevec operations here: perhaps scanning the pagevec for same page->
mem_cgroup (and flags node bits), NULLing entries as they are done.
Another, easily fixed, minor defect in this patch: if I'm reading it
right, it reverses the order in which the pages are put on the lru?
[PATCH v18 28/32] mm/compaction: Drop locked from isolate_migratepages_block
Most of this consists of replacing "locked" by "lruvec", which is good:
but please fold those changes back into 20/32 (or would it be 17/32?
I've not yet looked into the relationship between those two), so we
can then see more clearly what change this 28/32 (will need renaming!)
actually makes, to use lruvec_holds_page_lru_lock(). That may be a
good change, but it's mixed up with the "locked"->"lruvec" at present,
and I think you could have just used lruvec for locked all along
(but of course there's a place where you'll need new_lruvec too).
[PATCH v18 29/32] mm: Identify compound pages sooner in isolate_migratepages_block
NAK. I agree that isolate_migratepages_block() looks nicer this way, but
take a look at prep_new_page() in mm/page_alloc.c: post_alloc_hook() is
where set_page_refcounted() changes page->_refcount from 0 to 1, allowing
a racing get_page_unless_zero() to succeed; then later prep_compound_page()
is where PageHead and PageTails get set. So there's a small race window in
which this patch could deliver a compound page when it should not.
[PATCH v18 30/32] mm: Drop use of test_and_set_skip in favor of just setting skip
I haven't looked at this yet (but recall that per-memcg lru_lock can
change the point at which compaction should skip a contended lock: IIRC
the current kernel needs nothing extra, whereas some earlier kernels did
need extra; but when I look at 30/32, may find these remarks irrelevant).
[PATCH v18 31/32] mm: Add explicit page decrement in exception path for isolate_lru_pages
The title of this patch is definitely wrong: there was an explicit page
decrement there before (put_page), now it's wrapping it up inside a
WARN_ON(). We usually prefer to avoid doing functional operations
inside WARN/BUGs, but I think I'll overlook that - anyone else worried?
The comment is certainly better than what was there before: yes, this
warning reflects the difficulty we have in thinking about the
TestClearPageLRU protocol: which I'm still not sold on, but
agree we should proceed with. With a change in title, perhaps
"mm: add warning where TestClearPageLRU failed on freeable page"?
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
[PATCH v18 32/32] mm: Split release_pages work into 3 passes
I haven't looked at this yet (but seen no problem with it in testing).
And finally, here's my replacement (rediffed against 5.9-rc) for
[PATCH v18 09/32] mm/page_idle: no unlikely double check for idle page counting
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:43:34 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] mm: page_idle_get_page() does not need lru_lock
It is necessary for page_idle_get_page() to recheck PageLRU() after
get_page_unless_zero(), but holding lru_lock around that serves no
useful purpose, and adds to lru_lock contention: delete it.
See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20150504031722.GA2768@blaptop for the
discussion that led to lru_lock there; but __page_set_anon_rmap() now uses
WRITE_ONCE(), and I see no other risk in page_idle_clear_pte_refs() using
rmap_walk() (beyond the risk of racing PageAnon->PageKsm, mostly but not
entirely prevented by page_count() check in ksm.c's write_protect_page():
that risk being shared with page_referenced() and not helped by lru_lock).
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/page_idle.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
--- a/mm/page_idle.c
+++ b/mm/page_idle.c
@@ -32,19 +32,15 @@
static struct page *page_idle_get_page(unsigned long pfn)
{
struct page *page = pfn_to_online_page(pfn);
- pg_data_t *pgdat;
if (!page || !PageLRU(page) ||
!get_page_unless_zero(page))
return NULL;
- pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
- spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
if (unlikely(!PageLRU(page))) {
put_page(page);
page = NULL;
}
- spin_unlock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
return page;
}
