Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: make start_isolate_page_range() fail if already isolated

[Mike Kravetz]

On 03/02/2018 04:56 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:38:33 -0800 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/02/2018 04:06 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:10:54 -0800 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> start_isolate_page_range() is used to set the migrate type of a
>>>> set of page blocks to MIGRATE_ISOLATE while attempting to start
>>>> a migration operation.  It assumes that only one thread is
>>>> calling it for the specified range.  This routine is used by
>>>> CMA, memory hotplug and gigantic huge pages.  Each of these users
>>>> synchronize access to the range within their subsystem.  However,
>>>> two subsystems (CMA and gigantic huge pages for example) could
>>>> attempt operations on the same range.  If this happens, page
>>>> blocks may be incorrectly left marked as MIGRATE_ISOLATE and
>>>> therefore not available for page allocation.
>>>>
>>>> Without 'locking code' there is no easy way to synchronize access
>>>> to the range of page blocks passed to start_isolate_page_range.
>>>> However, if two threads are working on the same set of page blocks
>>>> one will stumble upon blocks set to MIGRATE_ISOLATE by the other.
>>>> In such conditions, make the thread noticing MIGRATE_ISOLATE
>>>> clean up as normal and return -EBUSY to the caller.
>>>>
>>>> This will allow start_isolate_page_range to serve as a
>>>> synchronization mechanism and will allow for more general use
>>>> of callers making use of these interfaces.  So, update comments
>>>> in alloc_contig_range to reflect this new functionality.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> --- a/mm/page_isolation.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
>>>> @@ -28,6 +28,13 @@ static int set_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, int migratetype,
>>>>  
>>>>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
>>>>  
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * We assume we are the only ones trying to isolate this block.
>>>> +	 * If MIGRATE_ISOLATE already set, return -EBUSY
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	if (is_migrate_isolate_page(page))
>>>> +		goto out;
>>>> +
>>>>  	pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
>>>>  	arg.start_pfn = pfn;
>>>>  	arg.nr_pages = pageblock_nr_pages;
>>>
>>> Seems a bit ugly and I'm not sure that it's correct.  If the loop in
>>> start_isolate_page_range() gets partway through a number of pages then
>>> we hit the race, start_isolate_page_range() will then go and "undo" the
>>> work being done by the thread which it is racing against?
>>
>> I agree that it is a bit ugly.  However, when a thread hits the above
>> condition it will only undo what it has done.  Only one thread is able
>> to set migrate state to isolate (under the zone lock).  So, a thread
>> will only undo what it has done.
> 
> I don't get it.  That would make sense if start_isolate_page_range()
> held zone->lock across the entire loop, but it doesn't do that.
> 

It works because all threads set migrate isolate on page blocks going
from pfn low to pfn high.  When they encounter a conflict, they know
exactly which blocks they set and only undo those blocks.  Perhaps, I
am missing something, but it does not matter because ...

>> The exact problem of one thread undoing what another thread has done
>> is possible with the code today and is what this patch is attempting
>> to address.
>>
>>> Even if that can't happen, blundering through a whole bunch of pages
>>> then saying whoops then undoing everything is unpleasing.
>>>
>>> Should we be looking at preventing these races at a higher level?
>>
>> I could not immediately come up with a good idea here.  The zone lock
>> would be the obvious choice, but I don't think we want to hold it while
>> examining each of the page blocks.  Perhaps a new lock or semaphore
>> associated with the zone?  I'm open to suggestions.
> 
> Yes, I think it would need a new lock.  Hopefully a mutex.

I'll look into adding an 'isolate' mutex to the zone structure and reworking
this patch.

-- 
Mike Kravetz