On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:03 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 12:57 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 1:34 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 4:05 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > 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... > >> > > >> > In both swap_cluster_readahead() and swap_vma_readahead() it looks > >> > like if the readahead window is 1 (aka we are not reading ahead), then > >> > we jump to directly calling read_swap_cache_async() passing do_poll = > >> > true, which means we may end up calling swap_readpage() passing > >> > synchronous = true. > >> > > >> > I am not familiar with readahead heuristics, so I am not sure how > >> > common this is, but it's something to think about. > >> > >> Uh, you are correct. If this branch is common, we could use the same > >> "drop the lock and retry" pattern inside read_swap_cache_async(). That > >> would be quite easy to implement. > >> Thanks for checking on it! > > > > > > I am honestly not sure how common this is. > > > > +Ying who might have a better idea. > > Checked the code and related history. It seems that we can just pass > "synchronous = false" to swap_readpage() in read_swap_cache_async(). > "synchronous = true" was introduced in commit 23955622ff8d ("swap: add > block io poll in swapin path") to reduce swap read latency for block > devices that can be polled. But in commit 9650b453a3d4 ("block: ignore > RWF_HIPRI hint for sync dio"), the polling is deleted. So, we don't > need to pass "synchronous = true" to swap_readpage() during > swapin_readahead(), because we will wait the IO to complete in > folio_lock_or_retry(). Thanks for investigating, Ying! It sounds like we can make some simplifications here. I'll double-check and if I don't find anything else, will change to "synchronous = false" in the next version of the patchset. > > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > Does that mean swapin_readahead() might return a page which does not > >> > > have its content swapped-in yet? > >> > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx. >