Messages in this thread | | | From | Yu Zhao <> | Date | Thu, 1 Dec 2022 12:47:33 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: multi-gen LRU: fix LRU size accounting on folio removal |
| |
On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 12:26 PM Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com> wrote: > > When removing a folio from MGLRU, we want to update the LRU size > accordingly based on the generation it belonged to previously - > lru_gen_update_size() does this. > > The bug here is, set_mask_bits effectively clears the generation bits. > Ignoring the complexity set_mask_bits is meant to handle, the code being > changed here is in effect: > > flags = !reclaiming && lru_gen_is_active(lruvec, gen) ? BIT(PG_active) : 0; > flags = *folio->flags = (*folio->flags & ~LRU_GEN_MASK) | flags; > gen = ((flags & LRU_GEN_MASK) >> LRU_GEN_PGOFF) - 1; > > In other words, the bug is we clear all of the `LGU_GEN_MASK` bits, and > then we recalculate `gen` - but of course after clearing the bits > `flags & LRU_GEN_MASK` is always zero, and so now `gen` is always -1. > > So we effectively always call: > > lru_gen_update_size(lruvec, folio, -1, -1); > > This leads `lru_gen_update_size` to incorrectly conclude that we're > **adding**, not removing, a folio. We take this path: > > /* addition */ > if (old_gen < 0) { > /* always false, new_gen is -1 too */ > if (lru_gen_is_active(lruvec, new_gen)) > /* ... */ > __update_lru_size(lruvec, lru, zone, delta); > return; > } > > In other words, when removing, we incorrectly *add* the delta to the > inactive LRU instead of subtracting. > > The fix is simple. We already have the generation number the folio > belonged to: we set `int gen = folio_lru_gen(folio);` at the top of > `lru_gen_del_folio`. So, just delete the line incorrectly recalculating > the generation number. > > Fixes: ec1c86b25f4b ("mm: multi-gen LRU: groundwork") > Signed-off-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
NAK.
You are referencing our old (9xx) set_mask_bits(), which returns "new" (a bad behavior). Its latest version returns "old".
Even if it was a bug:
1. lru_gen_update_size(lruvec, folio, -1, -1) would have been caught by VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(old_gen == -1 && new_gen == -1).
2. The fix is still wrong, because "gen" read from folio_lru_gen(folio) is non atomic and can change before set_mask_bits() finishes.
| |