lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: migration: fix migration of huge PMD shared pages
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 09:30:35AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 22-08-18 09:48:16, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > On 08/22/2018 05:28 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 21-08-18 18:10:42, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> > >> index eb477809a5c0..8cf853a4b093 100644
> > >> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> > >> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> > >> @@ -1362,11 +1362,21 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> /*
> > >> - * We have to assume the worse case ie pmd for invalidation. Note that
> > >> - * the page can not be free in this function as call of try_to_unmap()
> > >> - * must hold a reference on the page.
> > >> + * For THP, we have to assume the worse case ie pmd for invalidation.
> > >> + * For hugetlb, it could be much worse if we need to do pud
> > >> + * invalidation in the case of pmd sharing.
> > >> + *
> > >> + * Note that the page can not be free in this function as call of
> > >> + * try_to_unmap() must hold a reference on the page.
> > >> */
> > >> end = min(vma->vm_end, start + (PAGE_SIZE << compound_order(page)));
> > >> + if (PageHuge(page)) {
> > >> + /*
> > >> + * If sharing is possible, start and end will be adjusted
> > >> + * accordingly.
> > >> + */
> > >> + (void)huge_pmd_sharing_possible(vma, &start, &end);
> > >> + }
> > >> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(vma->vm_mm, start, end);
> > >
> > > I do not get this part. Why don't we simply unconditionally invalidate
> > > the whole huge page range?
> >
> > In this routine, we are only unmapping a single page. The existing code
> > is limiting the invalidate range to that page size: 4K or 2M. With shared
> > PMDs, we have the possibility of unmapping a PUD_SIZE area: 1G. I don't
> > think we want to unconditionally invalidate 1G. Is that what you are asking?
>
> But we know that huge_pmd_unshare unmapped a shared pte so we know when
> to flush 2MB or 1GB. I really do not like how huge_pmd_sharing_possible
> a) duplicates some checks and b) it updates start/stop out of line.

My reading on this is that mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start() has to be
called from sleepable context on the full range that *can* be invalidated
before following mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end().

In this case huge_pmd_unshare() may unmap aligned PUD_SIZE around the PMD
page that effectively enlarge range that has to be covered by
mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(). We cannot yet know if there's any
shared page tables in the range, so we need to go with worst case
scenario.

I don't see conceptually better solution than what is proposed.

--
Kirill A. Shutemov

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-23 10:22    [W:0.144 / U:0.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site