On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 05:24:17PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.05.24 16:27, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 04:09:41PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > By the way, some noob questions: am I OK with my assumption that it's
> > fine for reader code to operate on zone spans that are both stale and
> > "from the future"? thinking abstractly I guess that seeing a stale
> > value when racing with offline_pages is roughly the same as seeing a
> > value "from the future" when racing with online_pages?
>
> Right. PFN walkers should be using pfn_to_online_page(), where races are
> possible but barely seen in practice.
>
> zone handlers like mm/compaction.c can likely deal with races, although it
> might all be cleaner (and safer?) when using start+end. I recall it also
> recalls on pfn_to_online_page().
>
> Regarding page_outside_zone_boundaries(), it should be fine if we can read
> start+end atomically, that way we would not accidentally report "page
> outside ..." when changing the start address. I think with your current
> patch that might happen (although likely extremely hard to trigger) when
> growing the zone at the start, reducing zone_start_pfn.
Thanks a lot, this is very helpful
> > Also, is it ever possible for pages to get removed and then added back
> > and end up in a different zone than before?
>
> Yes. Changing between MOVABLE and NORMAL is possible and can easily be
> triggered by offlining+re-onlining memory blocks.
So, even if we make it impossible to see a totally bogus zone span,
you can observe a stale/futuristic span which currently contains pages
from a different zone?
That seems to imply you could look up a page page from a PFN within
zone A's apparent span, lock zone A and assume you can safely modify
the freelist the page is on, but actually that page is now in zone B.
So for example:
1. compact_zone() sets cc->free_pfn based on zone_end_pfn
2. isolate_freepages() sets isolate_start_pfn = cc->free_pfn
3. isolate_freepages_block() looks up a page based on that PFN
3. ... then takes the cc->zone lock
4. ... then calls __isolate_free_page which removes the page from
whatever freelist it's on.
Is anything stopping part 4 from modifying a zone that wasn't locked
in part 3?
