Re: [PATCH v6v3 02/12] mm: migrate: support non-lru movable page migration

[Anshuman Khandual]

On 06/16/2016 05:56 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:15:04PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 06/15/2016 08:02 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 03:08:19PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>> On 05/31/2016 05:31 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>>>>>> @@ -791,6 +921,7 @@ static int __unmap_and_move(struct page *page, struct page *newpage,
>>>>>>>  	int rc = -EAGAIN;
>>>>>>>  	int page_was_mapped = 0;
>>>>>>>  	struct anon_vma *anon_vma = NULL;
>>>>>>> +	bool is_lru = !__PageMovable(page);
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>  	if (!trylock_page(page)) {
>>>>>>>  		if (!force || mode == MIGRATE_ASYNC)
>>>>>>> @@ -871,6 +1002,11 @@ static int __unmap_and_move(struct page *page, struct page *newpage,
>>>>>>>  		goto out_unlock_both;
>>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> +	if (unlikely(!is_lru)) {
>>>>>>> +		rc = move_to_new_page(newpage, page, mode);
>>>>>>> +		goto out_unlock_both;
>>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Minchan,
>>>>>
>>>>> I might be missing something here but does this implementation support the
>>>>> scenario where these non LRU pages owned by the driver mapped as PTE into
>>>>> process page table ? Because the "goto out_unlock_both" statement above
>>>>> skips all the PTE unmap, putting a migration PTE and removing the migration
>>>>> PTE steps.
>>> You're right. Unfortunately, it doesn't support right now but surely,
>>> it's my TODO after landing this work.
>>>
>>> Could you share your usecase?
>>
>> Sure.
> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
>>
>> My driver has privately managed non LRU pages which gets mapped into user space
>> process page table through f_ops->mmap() and vmops->fault() which then updates
>> the file RMAP (page->mapping->i_mmap) through page_add_file_rmap(page). One thing
> 
> Hmm, page_add_file_rmap is not exported function. How does your driver can use it?

Its not using the function directly, I just re-iterated the sequence of functions
above. (do_set_pte -> page_add_file_rmap) gets called after we grab the page from
driver through (__do_fault->vma->vm_ops->fault()).

> Do you use vm_insert_pfn?
> What type your vma is? VM_PFNMMAP or VM_MIXEDMAP?

I dont use vm_insert_pfn(). Here is the sequence of events how the user space
VMA gets the non LRU pages from the driver.

- Driver registers a character device with 'struct file_operations' binding
- Then the 'fops->mmap()' just binds the incoming 'struct vma' with a 'struct
  vm_operations_struct' which provides the 'vmops->fault()' routine which
  basically traps all page faults on the VMA and provides one page at a time
  through a driver specific allocation routine which hands over non LRU pages

The VMA is not anything special as such. Its what we get when we try to do a
simple mmap() on a file descriptor pointing to a character device. I can
figure out all the VM_* flags it holds after creation.

> 
> I want to make dummy driver to simulate your case.

Sure. I hope the above mentioned steps will help you but in case you need more
information, please do let me know.

> It would be very helpful to implement/test pte-mapped non-lru page
> migration feature. That's why I ask now.
> 
>> to note here is that the page->mapping eventually points to struct address_space
>> (file->f_mapping) which belongs to the character device file (created using mknod)
>> which we are using for establishing the mmap() regions in the user space.
>>
>> Now as per this new framework, all the page's are to be made __SetPageMovable before
>> passing the list down to migrate_pages(). Now __SetPageMovable() takes *new* struct
>> address_space as an argument and replaces the existing page->mapping. Now thats the
>> problem, we have lost all our connection to the existing file RMAP information. This
> 
> We could change __SetPageMovable doesn't need mapping argument.
> Instead, it just marks PAGE_MAPPING_MOVABLE into page->mapping.
> For that, user should take care of setting page->mapping earlier than
> marking the flag.

Sounds like a good idea, that way we dont loose the reverse mapping information.

> 
>> stands as a problem when we try to migrate these non LRU pages which are PTE mapped.
>> The rmap_walk_file() never finds them in the VMA, skips all the migrate PTE steps and
>> then the migration eventually fails.
>>
>> Seems like assigning a new struct address_space to the page through __SetPageMovable()
>> is the source of the problem. Can it take the existing (file->f_mapping) as an argument

> We can set existing file->f_mapping under the page_lock.

Thats another option along with what you mentioned above.

> 
>> in there ? Sure, but then can we override file system generic ->isolate(), ->putback(),
> 
> I don't get it. Why does it override file system generic functions?

Sure it does not, it was just an wild idea to over come the problem.