Re: [PATCH v2] mm, thp: use head page in __migration_entry_wait

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 6/8/21 8:00 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 05:22:39PM +0800, Xu Yu wrote:
We notice that hung task happens in a conner but practical scenario when
CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is enabled, as follows.

Process 0                       Process 1                     Process 2..Inf
split_huge_page_to_list
     unmap_page
         split_huge_pmd_address
                                 __migration_entry_wait(head)
                                                               __migration_entry_wait(tail)
     remap_page (roll back)
         remove_migration_ptes
             rmap_walk_anon
                 cond_resched

Where __migration_entry_wait(tail) is occurred in kernel space, e.g.,
copy_to_user in fstat, which will immediately fault again without
rescheduling, and thus occupy the cpu fully.

When there are too many processes performing __migration_entry_wait on
tail page, remap_page will never be done after cond_resched.

This makes __migration_entry_wait operate on the compound head page,
thus waits for remap_page to complete, whether the THP is split
successfully or roll back.

Note that put_and_wait_on_page_locked helps to drop the page reference
acquired with get_page_unless_zero, as soon as the page is on the wait
queue, before actually waiting. So splitting the THP is only prevented
for a brief interval.

Fixes: ba98828088ad ("thp: add option to setup migration entries during PMD split")
Suggested-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Gang Deng <gavin.dg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Xu Yu <xuyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Looks good to me:

Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

But there's one quirk: if split succeed we effectively wait on wrong
page to be unlocked. And it may take indefinite time if split_huge_page()
was called on the head page.

Inspired by you, I look into the codes, and have a new question (nothing
to do with this patch).

If we split_huge_page_to_list on *tail* page (in fact, I haven't seen
that used yet),

mm/huge_memory.c:2666 checks "VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLocked(head), head);"
in split_huge_page_to_list(), while

mm/huge_memory.c:2497 does "unlock_page(subpage)", where subpage can
be head in this scenario, in __split_huge_page().

My confusion is
1) how the pin on the @subpage is got outside split_huge_page_to_list()?
   can we ever get tail page?

2) head page is locked outside split_huge_page_to_list(), but unlocked
   in __split_huge_page()?



Maybe we should consider waking up head waiter on head page, even if it is
still locked after split?

Something like this (untested):

diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index 63ed6b25deaa..f79a38e21e53 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -2535,6 +2535,9 @@ static void __split_huge_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
  		 */
  		put_page(subpage);
  	}
+
+	if (page == head)
+		wake_up_page_bit(page, PG_locked);
  }

  int total_mapcount(struct page *page)


--
Thanks,
Yu




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux