Re: [PATCH v2] mm: cma: indefinitely retry allocations in cma_alloc

From: Chris Goldsworthy
Date: Mon Sep 14 2020 - 14:33:54 EST


On 2020-09-14 02:31, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 11.09.20 21:17, Chris Goldsworthy wrote:

So, inside of cma_alloc(), instead of giving up when alloc_contig_range()
returns -EBUSY after having scanned a whole CMA-region bitmap, perform
retries indefinitely, with sleeps, to give the system an opportunity to
unpin any pinned pages.

Signed-off-by: Chris Goldsworthy <cgoldswo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Co-developed-by: Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/cma.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/cma.c b/mm/cma.c
index 7f415d7..90bb505 100644
--- a/mm/cma.c
+++ b/mm/cma.c
@@ -442,8 +443,28 @@ struct page *cma_alloc(struct cma *cma, size_t count, unsigned int align,
bitmap_maxno, start, bitmap_count, mask,
offset);
if (bitmap_no >= bitmap_maxno) {
- mutex_unlock(&cma->lock);
- break;
+ if (ret == -EBUSY) {
+ mutex_unlock(&cma->lock);
+
+ /*
+ * Page may be momentarily pinned by some other
+ * process which has been scheduled out, e.g.
+ * in exit path, during unmap call, or process
+ * fork and so cannot be freed there. Sleep
+ * for 100ms and retry the allocation.
+ */
+ start = 0;
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ msleep(100);
+ continue;
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * ret == -ENOMEM - all bits in cma->bitmap are
+ * set, so we break accordingly.
+ */
+ mutex_unlock(&cma->lock);
+ break;
+ }
}
bitmap_set(cma->bitmap, bitmap_no, bitmap_count);
/*


What about long-term pinnings? IIRC, that can happen easily e.g., with
vfio (and I remember there is a way via vmsplice).

Not convinced trying forever is a sane approach in the general case ...

Hi David,

I've botched the threading, so there are discussions with respect to the previous patch-set that is missing on this thread, which I will summarize below:

V1:
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/5/1097
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/6/1040
[3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/11/893
[4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/21/1490
[5] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/9/11/1072

[1] features version of the patch featured a finite number of retries, which has been stable for our kernels. In [2], Andrew questioned whether we could actually find a way of solving the problem on the grounds that doing a finite number of retries doesn't actually fix the problem (more importantly, in [4] Andrew indicated that he would prefer not to merge the patch as it doesn't solve the issue). In [3], I suggest one actual fix for this, which is to use preempt_disable/enable() to prevent context switches from occurring during the periods in copy_one_pte() and exit_mmap() (I forgot to mention this case in the commit text) in which _refcount > _mapcount for a page - you would also need to prevent interrupts from occurring to if we were to fully prevent the issue from occurring. I think this would be acceptable for the copy_one_pte() case, since there _refcount > _mapcount for little time. For the exit_mmap() case, however, _refcount is greater than _mapcount whilst the page-tables are being torn down for a process - that could be too long for disabling preemption / interrupts.

So, in [4], Andrew asks about two alternatives to see if they're viable: (1) acquiring locks on the exit_mmap path and migration paths, (2) retrying indefinitely. In [5], I discuss how using locks could increase the time it takes to perform a CMA allocation, such that a retry approach would avoid increased CMA allocation times. I'm also uncertain about how the locking scheme could be implemented effectively without introducing a new per-page lock that will be used specifically to solve this issue, and I'm not sure this would be accepted.

We're fine with doing indefinite retries, on the grounds that if there is some long-term pinning that occurs when alloc_contig_range returns -EBUSY, that it should be debugged and fixed. Would it be possible to make this infinite-retrying something that could be enabled or disabled by a defconfig option?

Thanks,

Chris.

--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project