On Thu 23-08-18 11:21:12, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 09:30:35AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 22-08-18 09:48:16, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > On 08/22/2018 05:28 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Tue 21-08-18 18:10:42, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> > > >> index eb477809a5c0..8cf853a4b093 100644
> > > >> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> > > >> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> > > >> @@ -1362,11 +1362,21 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page
> > > >> *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > >> }
> > > >>
> > > >> /*
> > > >> - * We have to assume the worse case ie pmd for invalidation.
> > > >> Note that
> > > >> - * the page can not be free in this function as call of
> > > >> try_to_unmap()
> > > >> - * must hold a reference on the page.
> > > >> + * For THP, we have to assume the worse case ie pmd for
> > > >> invalidation.
> > > >> + * For hugetlb, it could be much worse if we need to do pud
> > > >> + * invalidation in the case of pmd sharing.
> > > >> + *
> > > >> + * Note that the page can not be free in this function as call
> > > >> of
> > > >> + * try_to_unmap() must hold a reference on the page.
> > > >> */
> > > >> end = min(vma->vm_end, start + (PAGE_SIZE <<
> > > >> compound_order(page)));
> > > >> + if (PageHuge(page)) {
> > > >> + /*
> > > >> + * If sharing is possible, start and end will be
> > > >> adjusted
> > > >> + * accordingly.
> > > >> + */
> > > >> + (void)huge_pmd_sharing_possible(vma, &start, &end);
> > > >> + }
> > > >> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(vma->vm_mm, start, end);
> > > >
> > > > I do not get this part. Why don't we simply unconditionally invalidate
> > > > the whole huge page range?
> > >
> > > In this routine, we are only unmapping a single page. The existing code
> > > is limiting the invalidate range to that page size: 4K or 2M. With shared
> > > PMDs, we have the possibility of unmapping a PUD_SIZE area: 1G. I don't
> > > think we want to unconditionally invalidate 1G. Is that what you are
> > > asking?
> >
> > But we know that huge_pmd_unshare unmapped a shared pte so we know when
> > to flush 2MB or 1GB. I really do not like how huge_pmd_sharing_possible
> > a) duplicates some checks and b) it updates start/stop out of line.
>
> My reading on this is that mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start() has to be
> called from sleepable context on the full range that *can* be invalidated
> before following mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end().
>
> In this case huge_pmd_unshare() may unmap aligned PUD_SIZE around the PMD
> page that effectively enlarge range that has to be covered by
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(). We cannot yet know if there's any
> shared page tables in the range, so we need to go with worst case
> scenario.
>
> I don't see conceptually better solution than what is proposed.
I was thinking we would just pull PageHuge outside of the
page_vma_mapped_walk. I thought it would look much more straightforward
but I've tried to put something together and it grown into an ugly code
as well. So going the Mike's way might be a better option after all.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
