Re: [linus:master] [mm] efa7df3e3b: kernel_BUG_at_include/linux/page_ref.h

[David Hildenbrand]

On 03.06.24 22:44, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 1:38 PM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > try_get_folio() is all about grabbing a folio that might get freed
> > > > concurrently. That's why it calls folio_ref_try_add_rcu() and does
> > > > complicated stuff.
> > >
> > > IMHO we can define it.. e.g. try_get_page() wasn't defined as so.
> > >
> > > If we want to be crystal clear on that and if we think that's what we want,
> > > again I would suggest we rename it differently from try_get_page() to avoid
> > > future misuses, then add documents. We may want to also even assert the
> >
> > Yes, absolutely.
> >
> > > rcu/irq implications in try_get_folio() at entrance, then that'll be
> > > detected even without TINY_RCU config.
> > >
> > > > On !CONFIG_TINY_RCU, it performs a folio_ref_add_unless(). That's
> > > > essentially a atomic_add_unless(), which in the worst case ends up being a
> > > > cmpxchg loop.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Stating that we should be using try_get_folio() in paths where we are sure
> > > > the folio refcount is not 0 is the same as using folio_try_get() where
> > > > folio_get() would be sufficient.
> > > >
> > > > The VM_BUG_ON in folio_ref_try_add_rcu() really tells us here that we are
> > > > using a function in the wrong context, although in our case, it is safe to
> > > > use (there is now BUG). Which is true, because we know we have a folio
> > > > reference and can simply use a simple folio_ref_add().
> > > >
> > > > Again, just like we have folio_get() and folio_try_get(), we should
> > > > distinguish in GUP whether we are adding more reference to a folio (and
> > > > effectively do what folio_get() would), or whether we are actually grabbing
> > > > a folio that could be freed concurrently (what folio_try_get() would do).
> > >
> > > Yes we can.  Again, IMHO it's a matter of whether it will worth it.
> > >
> > > Note that even with SMP and even if we keep this code, the
> > > atomic_add_unless only affects gup slow on THP only, and even with that
> > > overhead it is much faster than before when that path was introduced.. and
> > > per my previous experience we don't care too much there, really.
> > >
> > > So it's literally only three paths that are relevant here on the "unless"
> > > overhead:
> > >
> > >     - gup slow on THP (I just added it; used to be even slower..)
> > >
> > >     - vivik's new path
> > >
> > >     - hugepd (which may be gone for good in a few months..)
> > >
> > > IMHO none of them has perf concerns.  The real perf concern paths is
> > > gup-fast when pgtable entry existed, but that must use atomic_add_unless()
> > > anyway.  Even gup-slow !thp case won't regress as that uses try_get_page().
> >
> > My point is primarily that we should be clear that the one thing is
> > GUP-fast, and the other is for GUP-slow.
> >
> > Sooner or later we'll see more code that uses try_grab_page() to be
> > converted to folios, and people might naturally use try_grab_folio(),
> > just like we did with Vivik's code.
> >
> > And I don't think we'll want to make GUP-slow in general using
> > try_grab_folio() in the future.
> >
> > So ...
> >
> > > So again, IMHO the easist way to fix this WARN is we drop the TINY_RCU bit,
> > > if nobody worries on UP perf.
> > >
> > > I don't have a strong opinion, if any of us really worry about above three
> > > use cases on "unless" overhead, and think it worthwhile to add the code to
> > > support it, I won't object. But to me it's adding pain with no real benefit
> > > we could ever measure, and adding complexity to backport too since we'll
> > > need a fix for as old as 6.6.
> >
> > ... for the sake of fixing this WARN, I don't primarily care. Adjusting
> > the TINY_RCU feels wrong because I suspect somebody had good reasons to
> > do it like that, and it actually reported something valuable (using the
> > wrong function for the job).
>
> I think this is the major concern about what fix we should do. If that
> tiny rcu optimization still makes sense and is useful, we'd better
> keep it. But I can't tell. Leaving it as is may be safer.

Willy moved that code in 020853b6f5e and I think it dates back to e286781d5f2e.

That contained:

+       /*
+        * Preempt must be disabled here - we rely on rcu_read_lock doing
+        * this for us.
+        *
+        * Pagecache won't be truncated from interrupt context, so if we have
+        * found a page in the radix tree here, we have pinned its refcount by
+        * disabling preempt, and hence no need for the "speculative get" that
+        * SMP requires.
+        */
+       VM_BUG_ON(page_count(page) == 0);
+       atomic_inc(&page->_count);
+


--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb