From: Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, honggyu.kim@sk.com, rakie.kim@sk.com,
hyeongtak.ji@sk.com, mhocko@kernel.org, vtavarespetr@micron.com,
jgroves@micron.com, ravis.opensrc@micron.com,
sthanneeru@micron.com, emirakhur@micron.com, Hasan.Maruf@amd.com,
seungjun.ha@samsung.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
dan.j.williams@intel.com,
Srinivasulu Thanneeru <sthanneeru.opensrc@micron.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/mempolicy: introduce MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE for weighted interleaving
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 13:01:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZbFQgSFfqDF+UvSX@memverge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87jznzts6f.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:51:20AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com> writes:
>
> + if (new && (new->mode == MPOL_INTERLEAVE ||
> + new->mode == MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE))
> current->il_prev = MAX_NUMNODES-1;
> task_unlock(current);
> mpol_put(old);
>
> I don't think we need to change this.
>
Ah you're right it's set to MAX_NUMNODES-1 here, but NUMA_NO_NODE can be
passed in as an argument to alloc_pages_bulk_array_mempolicy, like here:
vm_area_alloc_pages()
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) && nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
nr = alloc_pages_bulk_array_mempolicy(bulk_gfp,
nr_pages_request,
pages + nr_allocated);
> > (cur_weight = 0) can happen in two scenarios:
> > - initial setting of mempolicy (NUMA_NO_NODE w/ cur_weight=0)
> > - weighted_interleave_nodes decrements it down to 0
> >
> > Now that i'm looking at it - the second condition should not exist, and
> > we can eliminate it. The logic in weighted_interleave_nodes is actually
> > annoyingly unclear at the moment, so I'm going to re-factor it a bit to
> > be more explicit.
>
> I am OK with either way. Just a reminder, the first condition may be
> true in alloc_pages_bulk_array_weighted_interleave() and perhaps some
> other places.
>
Yeah, the bulk allocator handles it correctly, it's just a matter of
clarity for weighted_interleave_nodes.
What isn't necessarily handled correctly is the rebind code. Rebind due
to a cgroup/mems_allowed change can cause a stale weight to be carried.
Basically cur_weight is not cleared, but the node it applied to may no
longer be the next node when next_node_in() is called.
The race condition is 1) exceedingly rare, and 2) not necessarily harmful,
just inaccurate. The worst case scenario is that a node receives up to 255
additional allocations once after a rebind (but more likely 10-20).
I was considering forcing the interleave forward like this:
@@ -356,6 +361,10 @@ static void mpol_rebind_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
tmp = *nodes;
pol->nodes = tmp;
+
+ /* Weighted interleave policies are forced forward to the next node */
+ if (pol->mode & MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE)
+ pol->wil.cur_weight = 0;
}
But this creates 2 race conditions when we read cur_weight and nodemask
in the allocator path.
Example 1:
1) bulk allocator READ_ONCE(mask), READ_ONCE(cur_weight)
2) rebind changes nodemask and { cur_weight = 0; }
3) bulk allocator sets pol->wil.cur_weight
In this scenario, resume_weight is stale coming out of bulk allocations
if the resume_node has been removed from the node mask.
Example 2:
1) rebind changes nodemask
2) bulk allocator READ_ONCE(mask), READ_ONCE(cur_weight)
3) rebind sets { cur_weight = 0; }
In this scenario, cur_weight is stale going into bulk allocations.
Neither of these can force a violation of mems_allowed, just a
mis-application of a weight.
I'll need to think on this a bit. We can either leave this as-is,
meaning the first allocation after a rebind may apply the wrong weight
to a node, or we can try to track the current-interleave-node and
validate next_node_in(mask) == current-interleave-node before leaving
the allocator path (this may also be just as racey).
turns out concurrent counting is still hard :]
~Gregory
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-24 18:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-19 17:57 [PATCH v2 0/3] mm/mempolicy: weighted interleave mempolicy and sysfs extension Gregory Price
2024-01-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/mempolicy: implement the sysfs-based weighted_interleave interface Gregory Price
2024-01-22 8:03 ` Huang, Ying
2024-01-22 16:58 ` Gregory Price
2024-01-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/mempolicy: refactor a read-once mechanism into a function for re-use Gregory Price
2024-01-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/mempolicy: introduce MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE for weighted interleaving Gregory Price
2024-01-23 3:02 ` Huang, Ying
2024-01-23 4:54 ` Gregory Price
2024-01-23 5:16 ` Gregory Price
2024-01-23 8:35 ` Huang, Ying
2024-01-23 21:27 ` Gregory Price
2024-01-24 1:51 ` Huang, Ying
2024-01-24 18:01 ` Gregory Price [this message]
2024-01-23 8:13 ` Huang, Ying
2024-01-23 8:40 ` Huang, Ying
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZbFQgSFfqDF+UvSX@memverge.com \
--to=gregory.price@memverge.com \
--cc=Hasan.Maruf@amd.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=emirakhur@micron.com \
--cc=gourry.memverge@gmail.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=honggyu.kim@sk.com \
--cc=hyeongtak.ji@sk.com \
--cc=jgroves@micron.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=rakie.kim@sk.com \
--cc=ravis.opensrc@micron.com \
--cc=seungjun.ha@samsung.com \
--cc=sthanneeru.opensrc@micron.com \
--cc=sthanneeru@micron.com \
--cc=vtavarespetr@micron.com \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).