lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC] respect the referenced bit of KVM guest pages?
    On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 07:00:48PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
    > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
    > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 05:52:47PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
    > >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:31:19 +0800
    > >> Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:17:34PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
    > >> > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:34:38 +0800
    > >> > > Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
    > >> > >
    > >> > > > Minchan,
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:33:54PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
    > >> > > > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
    > >> > > > > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 01:15:02PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
    > >> > > > > >> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:53:00AM +0800, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > >> > > > > >> > Wu Fengguang wrote:
    > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 05:09:55AM +0800, Jeff Dike wrote:
    > >> > > > > >> > >> Side question -
    > >> > > > > >> > >>  Is there a good reason for this to be in shrink_active_list()
    > >> > > > > >> > >> as opposed to __isolate_lru_page?
    > >> > > > > >> > >>
    > >> > > > > >> > >>          if (unlikely(!page_evictable(page, NULL))) {
    > >> > > > > >> > >>                  putback_lru_page(page);
    > >> > > > > >> > >>                  continue;
    > >> > > > > >> > >>          }
    > >> > > > > >> > >>
    > >> > > > > >> > >> Maybe we want to minimize the amount of code under the lru lock or
    > >> > > > > >> > >> avoid duplicate logic in the isolate_page functions.
    > >> > > > > >> > >
    > >> > > > > >> > > I guess the quick test means to avoid the expensive page_referenced()
    > >> > > > > >> > > call that follows it. But that should be mostly one shot cost - the
    > >> > > > > >> > > unevictable pages are unlikely to cycle in active/inactive list again
    > >> > > > > >> > > and again.
    > >> > > > > >> >
    > >> > > > > >> > Please read what putback_lru_page does.
    > >> > > > > >> >
    > >> > > > > >> > It moves the page onto the unevictable list, so that
    > >> > > > > >> > it will not end up in this scan again.
    > >> > > > > >>
    > >> > > > > >> Yes it does. I said 'mostly' because there is a small hole that an
    > >> > > > > >> unevictable page may be scanned but still not moved to unevictable
    > >> > > > > >> list: when a page is mapped in two places, the first pte has the
    > >> > > > > >> referenced bit set, the _second_ VMA has VM_LOCKED bit set, then
    > >> > > > > >> page_referenced() will return 1 and shrink_page_list() will move it
    > >> > > > > >> into active list instead of unevictable list. Shall we fix this rare
    > >> > > > > >> case?
    > >> > > > >
    > >> > > > > I think it's not a big deal.
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > Maybe, otherwise I should bring up this issue long time before :)
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > > As you mentioned, it's rare case so there would be few pages in active
    > >> > > > > list instead of unevictable list.
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > Yes.
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > > When next time to scan comes, we can try to move the pages into
    > >> > > > > unevictable list, again.
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > Will PG_mlocked be set by then? Otherwise the situation is not likely
    > >> > > > to change and the VM_LOCKED pages may circulate in active/inactive
    > >> > > > list for countless times.
    > >> > >
    > >> > > PG_mlocked is not important in that case.
    > >> > > Important thing is VM_LOCKED vma.
    > >> > > I think below annotaion can help you to understand my point. :)
    > >> >
    > >> > Hmm, it looks like pages under VM_LOCKED vma is guaranteed to have
    > >> > PG_mlocked set, and so will be caught by page_evictable(). Is it?
    > >>
    > >> No. I am sorry for making my point not clear.
    > >> I meant following as.
    > >> When the next time to scan,
    > >>
    > >> shrink_page_list
    > >  ->
    > >                referenced = page_referenced(page, 1,
    > >                                                sc->mem_cgroup, &vm_flags);
    > >                /* In active use or really unfreeable?  Activate it. */
    > >                if (sc->order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER &&
    > >                                        referenced && page_mapping_inuse(page))
    > >                        goto activate_locked;
    > >
    > >> -> try_to_unmap
    > >     ~~~~~~~~~~~~ this line won't be reached if page is found to be
    > >     referenced in the above lines?
    >
    > Indeed! In fact, I was worry about that.
    > It looks after live lock problem.
    > But I think it's very small race window so there isn't any report until now.
    > Let's Cced Lee.
    >
    > If we have to fix it, how about this ?
    > This version has small overhead than yours since
    > there is less shrink_page_list call than page_referenced.

    Yeah, it looks better. However I still wonder if (VM_LOCKED && !PG_mlocked)
    is possible and somehow persistent. Does anyone have the answer? Thanks!

    Thanks,
    Fengguang

    >
    > diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
    > index ed63894..283266c 100644
    > --- a/mm/rmap.c
    > +++ b/mm/rmap.c
    > @@ -358,6 +358,7 @@ static int page_referenced_one(struct page *page,
    > */
    > if (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) {
    > *mapcount = 1; /* break early from loop */
    > + *vm_flags |= VM_LOCKED;
    > goto out_unmap;
    > }
    >
    > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
    > index d224b28..d156e1d 100644
    > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
    > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
    > @@ -632,7 +632,8 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct
    > list_head *page_list,
    > sc->mem_cgroup, &vm_flags);
    > /* In active use or really unfreeable? Activate it. */
    > if (sc->order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER &&
    > - referenced && page_mapping_inuse(page))
    > + referenced && page_mapping_inuse(page)
    > + && !(vm_flags & VM_LOCKED))
    > goto activate_locked;
    >
    >
    >
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Fengguang
    > >
    > >>       -> try_to_unmap_xxx
    > >>               -> if (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)
    > >>               -> try_to_mlock_page
    > >>                       -> TestSetPageMlocked
    > >>                       -> putback_lru_page
    > >>
    > >> So at last, the page will be located in unevictable list.
    > >>
    > >> > Then I was worrying about a null problem. Sorry for the confusion!
    > >> >
    > >> > Thanks,
    > >> > Fengguang
    > >> >
    > >> > > ----
    > >> > >
    > >> > > /*
    > >> > >  * called from munlock()/munmap() path with page supposedly on the LRU.
    > >> > >  *
    > >> > >  * Note:  unlike mlock_vma_page(), we can't just clear the PageMlocked
    > >> > >  * [in try_to_munlock()] and then attempt to isolate the page.  We must
    > >> > >  * isolate the page to keep others from messing with its unevictable
    > >> > >  * and mlocked state while trying to munlock.  However, we pre-clear the
    > >> > >  * mlocked state anyway as we might lose the isolation race and we might
    > >> > >  * not get another chance to clear PageMlocked.  If we successfully
    > >> > >  * isolate the page and try_to_munlock() detects other VM_LOCKED vmas
    > >> > >  * mapping the page, it will restore the PageMlocked state, unless the page
    > >> > >  * is mapped in a non-linear vma.  So, we go ahead and SetPageMlocked(),
    > >> > >  * perhaps redundantly.
    > >> > >  * If we lose the isolation race, and the page is mapped by other VM_LOCKED
    > >> > >  * vmas, we'll detect this in vmscan--via try_to_munlock() or try_to_unmap()
    > >> > >  * either of which will restore the PageMlocked state by calling
    > >> > >  * mlock_vma_page() above, if it can grab the vma's mmap sem.
    > >> > >  */
    > >> > > static void munlock_vma_page(struct page *page)
    > >> > > {
    > >> > > ...
    > >> > >
    > >> > > --
    > >> > > Kind regards,
    > >> > > Minchan Kim
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Kind regards,
    > >> Minchan Kim
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Kind regards,
    > Minchan Kim
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-08-18 13:15    [W:4.161 / U:0.096 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site