Re: [PATCH 24/31] mm/migrate_device: allow pte_offset_map_lock() to fail

[Alistair Popple]

Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, 23 May 2023, Alistair Popple wrote:
>> Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>> > migrate_vma_collect_pmd(): remove the pmd_trans_unstable() handling after
>> > splitting huge zero pmd, and the pmd_none() handling after successfully
>> > splitting huge page: those are now managed inside pte_offset_map_lock(),
>> > and by "goto again" when it fails.
>> >
>> > But the skip after unsuccessful split_huge_page() must stay: it avoids an
>> > endless loop.  The skip when pmd_bad()?  Remove that: it will be treated
>> > as a hole rather than a skip once cleared by pte_offset_map_lock(), but
>> > with different timing that would be so anyway; and it's arguably best to
>> > leave the pmd_bad() handling centralized there.
>> 
>> So for a pmd_bad() the sequence would be:
>> 
>> 1. pte_offset_map_lock() would return NULL and clear the PMD.
>> 2. goto again marks the page as a migrating hole,
>> 3. In migrate_vma_insert_page() a new PMD is created by pmd_alloc().
>> 4. This leads to a new zero page getting mapped for the previously
>>    pmd_bad() mapping.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> 
>> I'm not entirely sure what the pmd_bad() case is used for but is that
>> ok? I understand that previously it was all a matter of timing, but I
>> wouldn't rely on the previous code being correct in this regard either.
>
> The pmd_bad() case is for when the pmd table got corrupted (overwritten,
> cosmic rays, whatever), and that pmd entry is easily recognized as
> nonsense: we try not to crash on it, but user data may have got lost.
>
> My "timing" remark may not be accurate: I seem to be living in the past,
> when we had a lot more "pmd_none_or_clear_bad()"s around than today - I
> was thinking that any one of them could be racily changing the bad to none.
> Though I suppose I am now making my timing remark accurate, by changing
> the bad to none more often again.
>
> Since data is liable to be lost anyway (unless the corrupted entry was
> actually none before it got corrupted), it doesn't matter greatly what
> we do with it (some would definitely prefer a crash, but traditionally
> we don't): issue a "pmd bad" message and not get stuck in a loop is
> the main thing.

Thanks for the background. Either skipping it or marking it as a hole as
you've done here will avoid a loop so feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx>

>> 
>> > migrate_vma_insert_page(): remove comment on the old pte_offset_map()
>> > and old locking limitations; remove the pmd_trans_unstable() check and
>> > just proceed to pte_offset_map_lock(), aborting when it fails (page has
>> > now been charged to memcg, but that's so in other cases, and presumably
>> > uncharged later).
>> 
>> Correct, the non-migrating page will be freed later via put_page() which
>> will uncharge the page.
>
> Thanks for confirming, yes, it was more difficult once upon a time,
> but nowadays just a matter of reaching the final put_page()
>
> Hugh