On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 3:31 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 09:36:03AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 8:03 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 10:04:56PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:22 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 07:30:13PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 7:02 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 10:50:23AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > > > > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -3711,11 +3711,6 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > > > > > > > if (!pte_unmap_same(vmf))
> > > > > > > > goto out;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK) {
> > > > > > > > - ret = VM_FAULT_RETRY;
> > > > > > > > - goto out;
> > > > > > > > - }
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > entry = pte_to_swp_entry(vmf->orig_pte);
> > > > > > > > if (unlikely(non_swap_entry(entry))) {
> > > > > > > > if (is_migration_entry(entry)) {
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're missing the necessary fallback in the (!folio) case.
> > > > > > > swap_readpage() is synchronous and will sleep.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > True, but is it unsafe to do that under VMA lock and has to be done
> > > > > > under mmap_lock?
> > > > >
> > > > > ... you were the one arguing that we didn't want to wait for I/O with
> > > > > the VMA lock held?
> > > >
> > > > Well, that discussion was about waiting in folio_lock_or_retry() with
> > > > the lock being held. I argued against it because currently we drop
> > > > mmap_lock lock before waiting, so if we don't drop VMA lock we would
> > > > be changing the current behavior which might introduce new
> > > > regressions. In the case of swap_readpage and swapin_readahead we
> > > > already wait with mmap_lock held, so waiting with VMA lock held does
> > > > not introduce new problems (unless there is a need to hold mmap_lock).
> > > >
> > > > That said, you are absolutely correct that this situation can be
> > > > improved by dropping the lock in these cases too. I just didn't want
> > > > to attack everything at once. I believe after we agree on the approach
> > > > implemented in https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230501175025.36233-3-surenb@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > for dropping the VMA lock before waiting, these cases can be added
> > > > easier. Does that make sense?
> > >
> > > OK, I looked at this path some more, and I think we're fine. This
> > > patch is only called for SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO which is only set for
> > > QUEUE_FLAG_SYNCHRONOUS devices, which are brd, zram and nvdimms
> > > (both btt and pmem). So the answer is that we don't sleep in this
> > > path, and there's no need to drop the lock.
> >
> > Yes but swapin_readahead does sleep, so I'll have to handle that case
> > too after this.
>
> Sleeping is OK, we do that in pXd_alloc()! Do we block on I/O anywhere
> in swapin_readahead()? It all looks like async I/O to me.
Hmm. I thought that we have synchronous I/O in the following paths:
swapin_readahead()->swap_cluster_readahead()->swap_readpage()
swapin_readahead()->swap_vma_readahead()->swap_readpage()
but just noticed that in both cases swap_readpage() is called with the
synchronous parameter being false. So you are probably right here...
Does that mean swapin_readahead() might return a page which does not
have its content swapped-in yet?
