Re: [PATCH 06/16] huge tmpfs: shmem_is_huge(vma, inode, index)

[Yang Shi]

On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 1:28 AM Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2021, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 10:22 PM Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 30 Jul 2021, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 12:42 AM Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Extend shmem_huge_enabled(vma) to shmem_is_huge(vma, inode, index), so
> > > > > that a consistent set of checks can be applied, even when the inode is
> > > > > accessed through read/write syscalls (with NULL vma) instead of mmaps
> > > > > (the index argument is seldom of interest, but required by mount option
> > > > > "huge=within_size").  Clean up and rearrange the checks a little.
> > > > >
> > > > > This then replaces the checks which shmem_fault() and shmem_getpage_gfp()
> > > > > were making, and eliminates the SGP_HUGE and SGP_NOHUGE modes: while it's
> > > > > still true that khugepaged's collapse_file() at that point wants a small
> > > > > page, the race that might allocate it a huge page is too unlikely to be
> > > > > worth optimizing against (we are there *because* there was at least one
> > > > > small page in the way), and handled by a later PageTransCompound check.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it seems too unlikely. But if it happens the PageTransCompound
> > > > check may be not good enough since the page allocated by
> > > > shmem_getpage() may be charged to wrong memcg (root memcg). And it
> > > > won't be replaced by a newly allocated huge page so the wrong charge
> > > > can't be undone.
> > >
> > > Good point on the memcg charge: I hadn't thought of that.  Of course
> > > it's not specific to SGP_CACHE versus SGP_NOHUGE (this patch), but I
> > > admit that a huge mischarge is hugely worse than a small mischarge.
> >
> > The small page could be collapsed to a huge page sooner or later, so
> > the mischarge may be transient. But huge page can't be replaced.
>
> You're right, if all goes well, the mischarged small page could be
> collapsed to a correctly charged huge page sooner or later (but all
> may not go well), whereas the mischarged huge page is stuck there.
>
> >
> > >
> > > We could fix it by making shmem_getpage_gfp() non-static, and pointing
> > > to the vma (hence its mm, hence its memcg) here, couldn't we?  Easily
> > > done, but I don't really want to make shmem_getpage_gfp() public just
> > > for this, for two reasons.
> > >
> > > One is that the huge race it just so unlikely; and a mischarge to root
> > > is not the end of the world, so long as it's not reproducible.  It can
> > > only happen on the very first page of the huge extent, and the prior
> >
> > OK, if so the mischarge is not as bad as what I thought in the first place.
> >
> > > "Stop if extent has been truncated" check makes sure there was one
> > > entry in the extent at that point: so the race with hole-punch can only
> > > occur after we xas_unlock_irq(&xas) immediately before shmem_getpage()
> > > looks up the page in the tree (and I say hole-punch not truncate,
> > > because shmem_getpage()'s i_size check will reject when truncated).
> > > I don't doubt that it could happen, but stand by not optimizing against.
> >
> > I agree the race is so unlikely and it may be not worth optimizing
> > against it right now, but a note or a comment may be worth.
>
> Thanks, but despite us agreeing that the race is too unlikely to be worth
> optimizing against, it does still nag at me ever since you questioned it:
> silly, but I can't quite be convinced by my own dismissals.
>
> I do still want to get rid of SGP_HUGE and SGP_NOHUGE, clearing up those
> huge allocation decisions remains the intention; but now think to add
> SGP_NOALLOC for collapse_file() in place of SGP_NOHUGE or SGP_CACHE -
> to rule out that possibility of mischarge after racing hole-punch,
> no matter whether it's huge or small.  If any such race occurs,
> collapse_file() should just give up.
>
> This being the "Stupid me" SGP_READ idea, except that of course would
> not work: because half the point of that block in collapse_file() is
> to initialize the !Uptodate pages, whereas SGP_READ avoids doing so.
>
> There is, of course, the danger that in fixing this unlikely mischarge,
> I've got the code wrong and am introducing a bug: here's what a 17/16
> would look like, though it will be better inserted early.  I got sick
> of all the "if (page "s, and was glad of the opportunity to fix that
> outdated "bring it back from swap" comment - swap got done above.
>
> What do you think? Should I add this in or leave it out?

Thanks for keeping investigating this. The patch looks good to me. I
think we could go this way. Just a nit below.

>
> Thanks,
> Hugh
>
> --- a/include/linux/shmem_fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/shmem_fs.h
> @@ -108,6 +108,7 @@ extern unsigned long shmem_partial_swap_usage(struct address_space *mapping,
>  /* Flag allocation requirements to shmem_getpage */
>  enum sgp_type {
>         SGP_READ,       /* don't exceed i_size, don't allocate page */
> +       SGP_NOALLOC,    /* like SGP_READ, but do use fallocated page */

The comment looks misleading, it seems SGP_NOALLOC does clear the
Uptodate flag but SGP_READ doesn't. Or it is fine not to distinguish
this difference?

>         SGP_CACHE,      /* don't exceed i_size, may allocate page */
>         SGP_WRITE,      /* may exceed i_size, may allocate !Uptodate page */
>         SGP_FALLOC,     /* like SGP_WRITE, but make existing page Uptodate */
> --- a/mm/khugepaged.c
> +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
> @@ -1721,7 +1721,7 @@ static void collapse_file(struct mm_struct *mm,
>                                 xas_unlock_irq(&xas);
>                                 /* swap in or instantiate fallocated page */
>                                 if (shmem_getpage(mapping->host, index, &page,
> -                                                 SGP_CACHE)) {
> +                                                 SGP_NOALLOC)) {
>                                         result = SCAN_FAIL;
>                                         goto xa_unlocked;
>                                 }
> --- a/mm/shmem.c
> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> @@ -1903,26 +1903,27 @@ static int shmem_getpage_gfp(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
>                 return error;
>         }
>
> -       if (page)
> +       if (page) {
>                 hindex = page->index;
> -       if (page && sgp == SGP_WRITE)
> -               mark_page_accessed(page);
> -
> -       /* fallocated page? */
> -       if (page && !PageUptodate(page)) {
> +               if (sgp == SGP_WRITE)
> +                       mark_page_accessed(page);
> +               if (PageUptodate(page))
> +                       goto out;
> +               /* fallocated page */
>                 if (sgp != SGP_READ)
>                         goto clear;
>                 unlock_page(page);
>                 put_page(page);
> -               page = NULL;
> -               hindex = index;
>         }
> -       if (page || sgp == SGP_READ)
> -               goto out;
> +
> +       *pagep = NULL;
> +       if (sgp == SGP_READ)
> +               return 0;
> +       if (sgp == SGP_NOALLOC)
> +               return -ENOENT;
>
>         /*
> -        * Fast cache lookup did not find it:
> -        * bring it back from swap or allocate.
> +        * Fast cache lookup and swap lookup did not find it: allocate.
>          */
>
>         if (vma && userfaultfd_missing(vma)) {