On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 08:14:28 -0800 Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> LRU pagevec holds refcount of pages until the pagevec are drained.
> It could prevent migration since the refcount of the page is greater
> than the expection in migration logic. To mitigate the issue,
> callers of migrate_pages drains LRU pagevec via migrate_prep or
> lru_add_drain_all before migrate_pages call.
>
> However, it's not enough because pages coming into pagevec after the
> draining call still could stay at the pagevec so it could keep
> preventing page migration. Since some callers of migrate_pages have
> retrial logic with LRU draining, the page would migrate at next trail
> but it is still fragile in that it doesn't close the fundamental race
> between upcoming LRU pages into pagvec and migration so the migration
> failure could cause contiguous memory allocation failure in the end.
>
> To close the race, this patch disables lru caches(i.e, pagevec)
> during ongoing migration until migrate is done.
>
> Since it's really hard to reproduce, I measured how many times
> migrate_pages retried with force mode(it is about a fallback to a
> sync migration) with below debug code.
>
> int migrate_pages(struct list_head *from, new_page_t get_new_page,
> ..
> ..
>
> if (rc && reason == MR_CONTIG_RANGE && pass > 2) {
> printk(KERN_ERR, "pfn 0x%lx reason %d\n", page_to_pfn(page), rc);
> dump_page(page, "fail to migrate");
> }
>
> The test was repeating android apps launching with cma allocation
> in background every five seconds. Total cma allocation count was
> about 500 during the testing. With this patch, the dump_page count
> was reduced from 400 to 30.
>
> The new interface is also useful for memory hotplug which currently
> drains lru pcp caches after each migration failure. This is rather
> suboptimal as it has to disrupt others running during the operation.
> With the new interface the operation happens only once. This is also in
> line with pcp allocator cache which are disabled for the offlining as
> well.
>
This is really a rather ugly thing, particularly from a maintainability
point of view. Are you sure you found all the sites which need the
enable/disable? How do we prevent new ones from creeping in which need
the same treatment? Is there some way of adding a runtime check which
will trip if a conversion was missed?
> ...
>
> +bool lru_cache_disabled(void)
> +{
> + return atomic_read(&lru_disable_count);
> +}
> +
> +void lru_cache_enable(void)
> +{
> + atomic_dec(&lru_disable_count);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * lru_cache_disable() needs to be called before we start compiling
> + * a list of pages to be migrated using isolate_lru_page().
> + * It drains pages on LRU cache and then disable on all cpus until
> + * lru_cache_enable is called.
> + *
> + * Must be paired with a call to lru_cache_enable().
> + */
> +void lru_cache_disable(void)
> +{
> + atomic_inc(&lru_disable_count);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + /*
> + * lru_add_drain_all in the force mode will schedule draining on
> + * all online CPUs so any calls of lru_cache_disabled wrapped by
> + * local_lock or preemption disabled would be ordered by that.
> + * The atomic operation doesn't need to have stronger ordering
> + * requirements because that is enforeced by the scheduling
> + * guarantees.
> + */
> + __lru_add_drain_all(true);
> +#else
> + lru_add_drain();
> +#endif
> +}
I guess at least the first two of these functions should be inlined.
