Re: [v2 PATCH 1/2] mm: mempolicy: make the behavior consistent when MPOL_MF_MOVE* and MPOL_MF_STRICT were specified

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 6/22/19 2:20 AM, Yang Shi wrote:
> When both MPOL_MF_MOVE* and MPOL_MF_STRICT was specified, mbind() should
> try best to migrate misplaced pages, if some of the pages could not be
> migrated, then return -EIO.
> 
> There are three different sub-cases:
> 1. vma is not migratable
> 2. vma is migratable, but there are unmovable pages
> 3. vma is migratable, pages are movable, but migrate_pages() fails
> 
> If #1 happens, kernel would just abort immediately, then return -EIO,
> after the commit a7f40cfe3b7ada57af9b62fd28430eeb4a7cfcb7 ("mm:
> mempolicy: make mbind() return -EIO when MPOL_MF_STRICT is specified").
> 
> If #3 happens, kernel would set policy and migrate pages with best-effort,
> but won't rollback the migrated pages and reset the policy back.
> 
> Before that commit, they behaves in the same way.  It'd better to keep
> their behavior consistent.  But, rolling back the migrated pages and
> resetting the policy back sounds not feasible, so just make #1 behave as
> same as #3.
> 
> Userspace will know that not everything was successfully migrated (via
> -EIO), and can take whatever steps it deems necessary - attempt rollback,
> determine which exact page(s) are violating the policy, etc.
> 
> Make queue_pages_range() return 1 to indicate there are unmovable pages
> or vma is not migratable.
> 
> The #2 is not handled correctly in the current kernel, the following
> patch will fix it.
> 
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Agreed with the goal, but I think there's a bug, and room for improvement.

> ---
>  mm/mempolicy.c | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index 01600d8..b50039c 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -429,11 +429,14 @@ static inline bool queue_pages_required(struct page *page,
>  }
>  
>  /*
> - * queue_pages_pmd() has three possible return values:
> + * queue_pages_pmd() has four possible return values:
> + * 2 - there is unmovable page, and MPOL_MF_MOVE* & MPOL_MF_STRICT were
> + *     specified.
>   * 1 - pages are placed on the right node or queued successfully.
>   * 0 - THP was split.

I think if you renumbered these, it would be more consistent with
queue_pages_pte_range() and simplify the code there.
0 - pages on right node/queued
1 - unmovable page with right flags specified
2 - THP split

> - * -EIO - is migration entry or MPOL_MF_STRICT was specified and an existing
> - *        page was already on a node that does not follow the policy.
> + * -EIO - is migration entry or only MPOL_MF_STRICT was specified and an
> + *        existing page was already on a node that does not follow the
> + *        policy.
>   */
>  static int queue_pages_pmd(pmd_t *pmd, spinlock_t *ptl, unsigned long addr,
>  				unsigned long end, struct mm_walk *walk)
> @@ -463,7 +466,7 @@ static int queue_pages_pmd(pmd_t *pmd, spinlock_t *ptl, unsigned long addr,
>  	/* go to thp migration */
>  	if (flags & (MPOL_MF_MOVE | MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL)) {
>  		if (!vma_migratable(walk->vma)) {
> -			ret = -EIO;
> +			ret = 2;
>  			goto unlock;
>  		}
>  
> @@ -488,16 +491,29 @@ static int queue_pages_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,

Perhaps this function now also deserves a list of possible return values.

>  	struct queue_pages *qp = walk->private;
>  	unsigned long flags = qp->flags;
>  	int ret;
> +	bool has_unmovable = false;
>  	pte_t *pte;
>  	spinlock_t *ptl;
>  
>  	ptl = pmd_trans_huge_lock(pmd, vma);
>  	if (ptl) {
>  		ret = queue_pages_pmd(pmd, ptl, addr, end, walk);
> -		if (ret > 0)
> +		switch (ret) {

With renumbering suggested above, this could be:
if (ret != 2)
    return ret;

> +		/* THP was split, fall through to pte walk */
> +		case 0:
> +			break;
> +		/* Pages are placed on the right node or queued successfully */
> +		case 1:
>  			return 0;
> -		else if (ret < 0)
> +		/*
> +		 * Met unmovable pages, MPOL_MF_MOVE* & MPOL_MF_STRICT
> +		 * were specified.
> +		 */
> +		case 2:
> +			return 1;
> +		case -EIO:
>  			return ret;
> +		}
>  	}
>  
>  	if (pmd_trans_unstable(pmd))
> @@ -519,14 +535,21 @@ static int queue_pages_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
>  		if (!queue_pages_required(page, qp))
>  			continue;
>  		if (flags & (MPOL_MF_MOVE | MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL)) {
> -			if (!vma_migratable(vma))
> +			/* MPOL_MF_STRICT must be specified if we get here */
> +			if (!vma_migratable(vma)) {
> +				has_unmovable |= true;
>  				break;
> +			}
>  			migrate_page_add(page, qp->pagelist, flags);
>  		} else
>  			break;
>  	}
>  	pte_unmap_unlock(pte - 1, ptl);
>  	cond_resched();
> +
> +	if (has_unmovable)
> +		return 1;
> +
>  	return addr != end ? -EIO : 0;
>  }
>  
> @@ -639,7 +662,13 @@ static int queue_pages_test_walk(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
>   *
>   * If pages found in a given range are on a set of nodes (determined by
>   * @nodes and @flags,) it's isolated and queued to the pagelist which is
> - * passed via @private.)
> + * passed via @private.
> + *
> + * queue_pages_range() has three possible return values:
> + * 1 - there is unmovable page, but MPOL_MF_MOVE* & MPOL_MF_STRICT were
> + *     specified.
> + * 0 - queue pages successfully or no misplaced page.
> + * -EIO - there is misplaced page and only MPOL_MF_STRICT was specified.
>   */
>  static int
>  queue_pages_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> @@ -1182,6 +1211,7 @@ static long do_mbind(unsigned long start, unsigned long len,
>  	struct mempolicy *new;
>  	unsigned long end;
>  	int err;
> +	int ret;
>  	LIST_HEAD(pagelist);
>  
>  	if (flags & ~(unsigned long)MPOL_MF_VALID)
> @@ -1243,26 +1273,32 @@ static long do_mbind(unsigned long start, unsigned long len,
>  	if (err)
>  		goto mpol_out;
>  
> -	err = queue_pages_range(mm, start, end, nmask,
> +	ret = queue_pages_range(mm, start, end, nmask,
>  			  flags | MPOL_MF_INVERT, &pagelist);
> -	if (!err)
> -		err = mbind_range(mm, start, end, new);
> -
> -	if (!err) {
> -		int nr_failed = 0;
>  
> -		if (!list_empty(&pagelist)) {
> -			WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & MPOL_MF_LAZY);
> -			nr_failed = migrate_pages(&pagelist, new_page, NULL,
> -				start, MIGRATE_SYNC, MR_MEMPOLICY_MBIND);
> -			if (nr_failed)
> -				putback_movable_pages(&pagelist);
> -		}
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		err = -EIO;

I think after your patch, you miss putback_movable_pages() in cases
where some were queued, and later the walk returned -EIO. The previous
code doesn't miss it, but it's also not obvious due to the multiple if
(!err) checks. I would rewrite it some thing like this:

if (ret < 0) {
    putback_movable_pages(&pagelist);
    err = ret;
    goto mmap_out; // a new label above up_write()
}

The rest can have reduced identation now.

> +	else {
> +		err = mbind_range(mm, start, end, new);
>  
> -		if (nr_failed && (flags & MPOL_MF_STRICT))
> -			err = -EIO;
> -	} else
> -		putback_movable_pages(&pagelist);
> +		if (!err) {
> +			int nr_failed = 0;
> +
> +			if (!list_empty(&pagelist)) {
> +				WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & MPOL_MF_LAZY);
> +				nr_failed = migrate_pages(&pagelist, new_page,
> +					NULL, start, MIGRATE_SYNC,
> +					MR_MEMPOLICY_MBIND);
> +				if (nr_failed)
> +					putback_movable_pages(&pagelist);
> +			}
> +
> +			if ((ret > 0) ||
> +			    (nr_failed && (flags & MPOL_MF_STRICT)))
> +				err = -EIO;
> +		} else
> +			putback_movable_pages(&pagelist);

While at it, IIRC the kernel style says that when the 'if' part uses
'{ }' then the 'else' part should as well, and it shouldn't be mixed.

Thanks,
Vlastimil

> +	}
>  
>  	up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
>   mpol_out:
>