Re: [PATCH] mm: thp: check total_mapcount instead of page_mapcount

[Zi Yan]

On 30 Apr 2021, at 18:55, Yang Shi wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 3:30 PM Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Apr 2021, at 17:56, Yang Shi wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 2:30 PM Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 30 Apr 2021, at 17:07, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When debugging the bug reported by Wang Yugui [1], try_to_unmap() may
>>>>> return false positive for PTE-mapped THP since page_mapcount() is used
>>>>> to check if the THP is unmapped, but it just checks compound mapount and
>>>>> head page's mapcount.  If the THP is PTE-mapped and head page is not
>>>>> mapped, it may return false positive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Use total_mapcount() instead of page_mapcount() and do so for the
>>>>> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE in split_huge_page_to_list as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210412180659.B9E3.409509F4@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  mm/huge_memory.c | 2 +-
>>>>>  mm/rmap.c        | 2 +-
>>>>>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>>> index 63ed6b25deaa..2122c3e853b9 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>>> @@ -2718,7 +2718,7 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list(struct page *page, struct list_head *list)
>>>>>       }
>>>>>
>>>>>       unmap_page(head);
>>>>> -     VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(compound_mapcount(head), head);
>>>>> +     VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(total_mapcount(head), head);
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure about this change. The code below also checks total_mapcount(head)
>>>> and returns EBUSY if the count is non-zero. This change makes the code dead.
>>>
>>> It is actually dead if CONFIG_DEBUG_VM is enabled and total_mapcount
>>> is not 0 regardless of this change due to the below code, right?
>>>
>>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_VM) && mapcount) {
>>>                         pr_alert("total_mapcount: %u, page_count(): %u\n",
>>>                                         mapcount, count);
>>>                         if (PageTail(page))
>>>                                 dump_page(head, NULL);
>>>                         dump_page(page, "total_mapcount(head) > 0");
>>>                         BUG();
>>>                 }
>>
>> Right. But with this change, mapcount will never be non-zero. The code above
>> will be useless and can be removed.
>
> Yes, you are correct.
>
>>
>>>> On the other hand, the change will force all mappings to the page have to be
>>>> successfully unmapped all the time. I am not sure if we want to do that.
>>>> Maybe it is better to just check total_mapcount() and fail the split.
>>>> The same situation happens with the code change below.
>>>
>>> IIUC, the code did force all mappings to the page to be unmapped in
>>> order to split it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       /* block interrupt reentry in xa_lock and spinlock */
>>>>>       local_irq_disable();
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>>>>> index 693a610e181d..2e547378ab5f 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>>>>> @@ -1777,7 +1777,7 @@ bool try_to_unmap(struct page *page, enum ttu_flags flags)
>>>>>       else
>>>>>               rmap_walk(page, &rwc);
>>>>>
>>>>> -     return !page_mapcount(page) ? true : false;
>>>>> +     return !total_mapcount(page) ? true : false;
>>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> In unmap_page(), VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!unmap_success, page) will force all mappings
>>>> to the page have to be all unmapped, which might not be the case we want.
>>>
>>> AFAICT, I don't see such a case from all the callers of
>>> try_to_unmap(). Imay miss something, but I do have a hard time
>>> thinking of a usecase which can proceed safely with "not fully
>>> unmapped" page.
>>
>> This code change is correct, but after the change unmap_page() will fire VM_BUG_ON
>> when not all mappings are unmapped. Along with the change above, we will have
>> two identical VM_BUG_ONs happen one after another. We might want to remove one
>> of them.
>
> Yes. I'd prefer keep the one after unmap_page() since it seems more
> obvious. Any objection?

Sounds good to me.

>
>>
>> Also, this changes the semantics of try_to_unmap. The comment for try_to_unmap
>> might need to be updated.
>
> What comment do you refer to?

/**
 * try_to_unmap - try to remove all page table mappings to a page

a page -> a page and the compound page it belongs to

 * @page: the page to get unmapped

the page -> the page or the subpage of a compound page

 * @flags: action and flags
 *
 * Tries to remove all the page table entries which are mapping this
 * page, used in the pageout path.  Caller must hold the page lock.

this page -> this page and the compound page it belongs to

Feel free to change the wording if you find better ones.


—
Best Regards,
Yan Zi

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature