On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 03:50:29PM +0800, Wang, Yalin wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Minchan Kim > > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 2:44 PM > > To: Wang, Yalin > > Cc: Michal Hocko; Andrew Morton; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > mm@xxxxxxxxx; Rik van Riel; Johannes Weiner; Mel Gorman; Shaohua Li > > Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: change mm_advise_free to clear page dirty > > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 01:48:48PM +0800, Wang, Yalin wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Minchan > > Kim > > > > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 1:28 PM > > > > To: Wang, Yalin > > > > Cc: Michal Hocko; Andrew Morton; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > > > mm@xxxxxxxxx; Rik van Riel; Johannes Weiner; Mel Gorman; Shaohua Li > > > > Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: change mm_advise_free to clear page dirty > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:37:18AM +0800, Wang, Yalin wrote: > > > > > This patch add ClearPageDirty() to clear AnonPage dirty flag, > > > > > the Anonpage mapcount must be 1, so that this page is only used by > > > > > the current process, not shared by other process like fork(). > > > > > if not clear page dirty for this anon page, the page will never be > > > > > treated as freeable. > > > > > > > > In case of anonymous page, it has PG_dirty when VM adds it to > > > > swap cache and clear it in clear_page_dirty_for_io. That's why > > > > I added ClearPageDirty if we found it in swapcache. > > > > What case am I missing? It would be better to understand if you > > > > describe specific scenario. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yalin Wang <yalin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > mm/madvise.c | 15 +++++---------- > > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c > > > > > index 6d0fcb8..257925a 100644 > > > > > --- a/mm/madvise.c > > > > > +++ b/mm/madvise.c > > > > > @@ -297,22 +297,17 @@ static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, > > > > unsigned long addr, > > > > > continue; > > > > > > > > > > page = vm_normal_page(vma, addr, ptent); > > > > > - if (!page) > > > > > + if (!page || !PageAnon(page) || !trylock_page(page)) > > > > > continue; > > > > > > > > > > if (PageSwapCache(page)) { > > > > > - if (!trylock_page(page)) > > > > > + if (!try_to_free_swap(page)) > > > > > continue; > > > > > - > > > > > - if (!try_to_free_swap(page)) { > > > > > - unlock_page(page); > > > > > - continue; > > > > > - } > > > > > - > > > > > - ClearPageDirty(page); > > > > > - unlock_page(page); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > + if (page_mapcount(page) == 1) > > > > > + ClearPageDirty(page); > > > > > + unlock_page(page); > > > > > /* > > > > > * Some of architecture(ex, PPC) don't update TLB > > > > > * with set_pte_at and tlb_remove_tlb_entry so for > > > > > -- > > > Yes, for page which is in SwapCache, it is correct, > > > But for anon page which is not in SwapCache, it is always > > > PageDirty(), so we should also clear dirty bit to make it freeable, > > > > No. Every anon page starts from !PageDirty and it has PG_dirty > > only when it's addeded into swap cache. If vm_swap_full turns on, > > a page in swap cache could have PG_dirty via try_to_free_swap again. > > mmm.. > sometimes you can see an anon page PageDirty(), but it is not in swapcache, > for example, handle_pte_fault()-->do_swap_page()-->try_to_free_swap(), > at this time, the page is deleted from swapcache and is marked PageDirty(), That's what I missed. It's clear and would be simple patch so could you send a patch to fix this issue with detailed description like above? > > > > So, Do you have concern about swapped-out pages when MADV_FREE is > > called? If so, please look at my patch. > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/25/43 > > > > It will zap the swapped out page. So, this is not a issue any more? > > > > > > > > Another problem is that if an anon page is shared by more than one > > process, > > > This happened when fork(), the anon page will be copy on write, > > > In this case, we should not clear page dirty, > > > This is not correct for other process which don't call MADV_FREE syscall. > > > > You mean we shouldn't inherit MADV_FREE attribute? > > Why? > > Is it correct behavior if code like this: > > Parent: > ptr1 = malloc(len); > memset(ptr1, 'a', len); > fork(); > if (I am parent) > madvise_free(ptr1, len); > > child: > sleep(10); > parse_data(ptr1, len); // child may see zero, not 'a', > // is it the right behavior that the programer want? > > Because child don't call madvise_free(), so it should see 'a', not zero page. > Isn't it ? You're absolutely right. Thanks. But I doubt your fix is best. Most of fork will do exec soonish so it's not a good idea to make MADV_FREE void even though hinted pages are shared when the syscall was called. How about checking the page is shared or not in reclaim path? If it is still shared, we shouldn't discard it. Thanks. > Thanks > > > > > > -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>