On 22 Jul 2024, at 10:01, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2024, at 21:47, Huang, Ying wrote:
>
>> Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On 18 Jul 2024, at 4:36, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>
>>>> Zi Yan <zi.yan@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> From: Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> do_numa_page() and do_huge_pmd_numa_page() share a lot of common code. To
>>>>> reduce redundancy, move common code to numa_migrate_prep() and rename
>>>>> the function to numa_migrate_check() to reflect its functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is some code difference between do_numa_page() and
>>>>> do_huge_pmd_numa_page() before the code move:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. do_huge_pmd_numa_page() did not check shared folios to set TNF_SHARED.
>>>>> 2. do_huge_pmd_numa_page() did not check and skip zone device folios.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> mm/huge_memory.c | 28 ++++++-----------
>>>>> mm/internal.h | 5 +--
>>>>> mm/memory.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>>>>> 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>>> index 8c11d6da4b36..66d67d13e0dc 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>>> @@ -1670,10 +1670,10 @@ vm_fault_t do_huge_pmd_numa_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>>> pmd_t pmd;
>>>>> struct folio *folio;
>>>>> unsigned long haddr = vmf->address & HPAGE_PMD_MASK;
>>>>> - int nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
>>>>> - int target_nid, last_cpupid = (-1 & LAST_CPUPID_MASK);
>>>>> + int target_nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
>>>>> + int last_cpupid = (-1 & LAST_CPUPID_MASK);
>>>>> bool writable = false;
>>>>> - int flags = 0;
>>>>> + int flags = 0, nr_pages;
>>>>>
>>>>> vmf->ptl = pmd_lock(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
>>>>> if (unlikely(!pmd_same(oldpmd, *vmf->pmd))) {
>>>>> @@ -1693,21 +1693,13 @@ vm_fault_t do_huge_pmd_numa_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>>> writable = true;
>>>>>
>>>>> folio = vm_normal_folio_pmd(vma, haddr, pmd);
>>>>> - if (!folio)
>>>>> + if (!folio || folio_is_zone_device(folio))
>>>>
>>>> This change appears unrelated. Can we put it in a separate patch?
>>>>
>>>> IIUC, this isn't necessary even in do_numa_page()? Because in
>>>> change_pte_range(), folio_is_zone_device() has been checked already.
>>>> But It doesn't hurt too.
>>>>
>>>>> goto out_map;
>>>>>
>>>>> - /* See similar comment in do_numa_page for explanation */
>>>>> - if (!writable)
>>>>> - flags |= TNF_NO_GROUP;
>>>>> + nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio);
>>>>>
>>>>> - nid = folio_nid(folio);
>>>>> - /*
>>>>> - * For memory tiering mode, cpupid of slow memory page is used
>>>>> - * to record page access time. So use default value.
>>>>> - */
>>>>> - if (folio_has_cpupid(folio))
>>>>> - last_cpupid = folio_last_cpupid(folio);
>>>>> - target_nid = numa_migrate_prep(folio, vmf, haddr, nid, &flags);
>>>>> + target_nid = numa_migrate_check(folio, vmf, haddr, writable,
>>>>> + &flags, &last_cpupid);
>>>>> if (target_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
>>>>> goto out_map;
>>>>> if (migrate_misplaced_folio_prepare(folio, vma, target_nid)) {
>>>>> @@ -1720,8 +1712,8 @@ vm_fault_t do_huge_pmd_numa_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>>>
>>>>> if (!migrate_misplaced_folio(folio, vma, target_nid)) {
>>>>> flags |= TNF_MIGRATED;
>>>>> - nid = target_nid;
>>>>> } else {
>>>>> + target_nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
>>>>> flags |= TNF_MIGRATE_FAIL;
>>>>> vmf->ptl = pmd_lock(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
>>>>> if (unlikely(!pmd_same(oldpmd, *vmf->pmd))) {
>>>>> @@ -1732,8 +1724,8 @@ vm_fault_t do_huge_pmd_numa_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> out:
>>>>> - if (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE)
>>>>> - task_numa_fault(last_cpupid, nid, HPAGE_PMD_NR, flags);
>>>>> + if (target_nid != NUMA_NO_NODE)
>>>>> + task_numa_fault(last_cpupid, target_nid, nr_pages, flags);
>>>>
>>>> This appears a behavior change. IIUC, there are 2 possible issues.
>>>>
>>>> 1) if migrate_misplaced_folio() fails, folio_nid() should be used as
>>>> nid. "target_nid" as variable name here is confusing, because
>>>> folio_nid() is needed in fact.
>>>>
>>>> 2) if !pmd_same(), task_numa_fault() should be skipped. The original
>>>> code is buggy.
>>>>
>>>> Similar issues for do_numa_page().
>>>>
>>>> If my understanding were correct, we should implement a separate patch
>>>> to fix 2) above. And that may need to be backported.
>>>
>>> Hmm, the original code seems OK after I checked the implementation.
>>> There are two possible !pte_same()/!pmd_same() locations:
>>> 1) at the beginning of do_numa_page() and do_huge_pmd_numa_page() and the faulted
>>> PTE/PMD changed before the folio can be checked, task_numa_fault() should not be
>>> called.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> 2) when migrate_misplaced_folio() failed and the PTE/PMD changed, but the folio
>>> has been determined and checked. task_numa_fault() should be called even if
>>> !pte_same()/!pmd_same(),
>>
>> IIUC, if !pte_same()/!pmd_same(), the fault has been processed on
>> another CPU. For example, do_numa_page()/do_huge_pmd_numa_page() has
>> been called on another CPU and task_numa_fault() has been called for the
>> PTE/PMD already.
>
> Hmm, this behavior at least dates back to 2015 at
> commit 074c238177a7 ("mm: numa: slow PTE scan rate if migration failures occur”).
> So cc Mel.
>
> The code is https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/mm/memory.c?id=074c238177a75f5e79af3b2cb6a84e54823ef950#n3102. I have not checked older
> commits.
>
> I wonder how far we should trace back.
OK, I find the commit where task_numa_fault policy settled:
8191acbd30c7 ("mm: numa: Sanitize task_numa_fault() callsites”).
It says:
“So modify all three sites to always account; we did after all receive
the fault; and always account to where the page is after migration,
regardless of success.“, where the three call sites were:
do_huge_pmd_numa_page(), do_numa_page(), and do_pmd_numa_page().
The current code still follows what the commit log does.
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
