Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] mm, compaction: skip buddy pages by their order in the migrate scanner

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 06/05/2014 02:02 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
> > index ae7db5f..3dce5a7 100644
> > --- a/mm/compaction.c
> > +++ b/mm/compaction.c
> > @@ -640,11 +640,18 @@ isolate_migratepages_range(struct zone *zone, struct compact_control *cc,
> >   		}
> >
> >   		/*
> > -		 * Skip if free. page_order cannot be used without zone->lock
> > -		 * as nothing prevents parallel allocations or buddy merging.
> > +		 * Skip if free. We read page order here without zone lock
> > +		 * which is generally unsafe, but the race window is small and
> > +		 * the worst thing that can happen is that we skip some
> > +		 * potential isolation targets.
>
> Should we only be doing the low_pfn adjustment based on the order for
> MIGRATE_ASYNC?  It seems like sync compaction, including compaction that
> is triggered from the command line, would prefer to scan over the
> following pages.

I thought even sync compaction would benefit from the skipped 
iterations. I'd say the probability of this race is smaller than 
probability of somebody allocating what compaction just freed.

> >   		 */
> > -		if (PageBuddy(page))
> > +		if (PageBuddy(page)) {
> > +			unsigned long freepage_order = page_order_unsafe(page);
>
> I don't assume that we want a smp_wmb() in set_page_order() for this
> little race and to recheck PageBuddy() here after smp_rmb().

Hm right, barriers didn't came up last time a patch like this was 
posted. Rechecking PageBuddy() did came up but I thought the range 
checks on the order are enough for this case.

> I think this is fine for MIGRATE_ASYNC.
>
> > +
> > +			if (freepage_order > 0 && freepage_order < MAX_ORDER)
> > +				low_pfn += (1UL << freepage_order) - 1;
> >   			continue;
> > +		}
> >
> >   		/*
> >   		 * Check may be lockless but that's ok as we recheck later.
> > @@ -733,6 +740,13 @@ next_pageblock:
> >   		low_pfn = ALIGN(low_pfn + 1, pageblock_nr_pages) - 1;
> >   	}
> >
> > +	/*
> > +	 * The PageBuddy() check could have potentially brought us outside
> > +	 * the range to be scanned.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (unlikely(low_pfn > end_pfn))
> > +		end_pfn = low_pfn;
> > +
> >   	acct_isolated(zone, locked, cc);
> >
> >   	if (locked)
> > diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> > index 1a8a0d4..6aa1f74 100644
> > --- a/mm/internal.h
> > +++ b/mm/internal.h
> > @@ -164,7 +164,8 @@ isolate_migratepages_range(struct zone *zone, struct compact_control *cc,
> >    * general, page_zone(page)->lock must be held by the caller to prevent the
> >    * page from being allocated in parallel and returning garbage as the order.
> >    * If a caller does not hold page_zone(page)->lock, it must guarantee that the
> > - * page cannot be allocated or merged in parallel.
> > + * page cannot be allocated or merged in parallel. Alternatively, it must
> > + * handle invalid values gracefully, and use page_order_unsafe() below.
> >    */
> >   static inline unsigned long page_order(struct page *page)
> >   {
> > @@ -172,6 +173,23 @@ static inline unsigned long page_order(struct page *page)
> >   	return page_private(page);
> >   }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Like page_order(), but for callers who cannot afford to hold the zone lock,
> > + * and handle invalid values gracefully. ACCESS_ONCE is used so that if the
> > + * caller assigns the result into a local variable and e.g. tests it for valid
> > + * range  before using, the compiler cannot decide to remove the variable and
> > + * inline the function multiple times, potentially observing different values
> > + * in the tests and the actual use of the result.
> > + */
> > +static inline unsigned long page_order_unsafe(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > +	/*
> > +	 * PageBuddy() should be checked by the caller to minimize race window,
> > +	 * and invalid values must be handled gracefully.
> > +	 */
> > +	return ACCESS_ONCE(page_private(page));
> > +}
> > +
> >   /* mm/util.c */
> >   void __vma_link_list(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >   		struct vm_area_struct *prev, struct rb_node *rb_parent);
>
> I don't like this change at all, I don't think we should have header
> functions that imply the context in which the function will be called.  I
> think it would make much more sense to just do
> ACCESS_ONCE(page_order(page)) in the migration scanner with a comment.

But that won't compile. It would have to be converted to a #define, 
unless there's some trick I don't know. Sure I would hope this could be 
done cleaner somehow.

> These are __attribute__((pure)) semantics for page_order().

Not sure I understand what you mean here. Would adding that attribute 
change anything?


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/