On 10.08.24 20:42, Dev Jain wrote:

On 8/9/24 19:17, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

On 09.08.24 12:31, Dev Jain wrote:

quoted

As already being done in __migrate_folio(), wherein we backoff if the
folio refcount is wrong, make this check during the unmapping phase,
upon
the failure of which, the original state of the PTEs will be restored
and
the folio lock will be dropped via migrate_folio_undo_src(), any racing
thread will make progress and migration will be retried.

Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
---
   mm/migrate.c | 9 +++++++++
   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
index e7296c0fb5d5..477acf996951 100644
--- a/mm/migrate.c
+++ b/mm/migrate.c

@@ -1250,6 +1250,15 @@ static int migrate_folio_unmap(new_folio_t

get_new_folio,
       }
         if (!folio_mapped(src)) {
+        /*
+         * Someone may have changed the refcount and maybe sleeping
+         * on the folio lock. In case of refcount mismatch, bail out,
+         * let the system make progress and retry.
+         */
+        struct address_space *mapping = folio_mapping(src);
+
+        if (folio_ref_count(src) != folio_expected_refs(mapping, src))
+            goto out;

This really seems to be the latest point where we can "easily" back
off and unlock the source folio -- in this function :)

I wonder if we should be smarter in the migrate_pages_batch() loop
when we start the actual migrations via migrate_folio_move(): if we
detect that a folio has unexpected references *and* it has waiters
(PG_waiters), back off then and retry the folio later. If it only has
unexpected references, just keep retrying: no waiters -> nobody is
waiting for the lock to make progress.

The patch currently retries migration irrespective of the reason of
refcount change.

If you are suggesting that, break the retrying according to two conditions:

That's not what I am suggesting ...

quoted

This really seems to be the latest point where we can "easily" back
off and unlock the source folio -- in this function :)
For example, when migrate_folio_move() fails with -EAGAIN, check if
there are waiters (PG_waiter?) and undo+unlock to try again later.

Currently, on -EAGAIN, migrate_folio_move() returns without undoing src
and dst; even if we were to fall

...

I am wondering if we should detect here if there are waiters and undo 
src+dst.

Does that make sense?

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb