From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: skip gigantic pages in isolate_single_pageblock() when mem offline
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:58:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <113f25e0-7eed-405b-9369-bc23b780d315@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50FEEE33-49CA-48B5-B4C5-964F1BE25D43@nvidia.com>
On 2024/8/14 22:53, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2024, at 22:01, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>
>> On 2024/8/13 22:59, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> On 13 Aug 2024, at 10:46, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024/8/13 22:03, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 08:52:26PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>>>>> The gigantic page size may larger than memory block size, so memory
>>>>>> offline always fails in this case after commit b2c9e2fbba32 ("mm: make
>>>>>> alloc_contig_range work at pageblock granularity"),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> offline_pages
>>>>>> start_isolate_page_range
>>>>>> start_isolate_page_range(isolate_before=true)
>>>>>> isolate [isolate_start, isolate_start + pageblock_nr_pages)
>>>>>> start_isolate_page_range(isolate_before=false)
>>>>>> isolate [isolate_end - pageblock_nr_pages, isolate_end) pageblock
>>>>>> __alloc_contig_migrate_range
>>>>>> isolate_migratepages_range
>>>>>> isolate_migratepages_block
>>>>>> isolate_or_dissolve_huge_page
>>>>>> if (hstate_is_gigantic(h))
>>>>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ 15.815756] memory offlining [mem 0x3c0000000-0x3c7ffffff] failed due to failure to isolate range
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fix it by skipping the __alloc_contig_migrate_range() if met gigantic
>>>>>> pages when memory offline, which return back to the original logic to
>>>>>> handle the gigantic pages.
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems like the wrong way to fix this. The logic in the next
>>>>> PageHuge() section seems like it's specifically supposed to handle
>>>>> gigantic pages. So you've just made that dead code, but instead of
>>>>> removing it, you've left it there to confuse everyone?
>>>>
>>>> isolate_single_pageblock() in start_isolate_page_range() will be called
>>>> from memory offline and contig allocation (alloc_contig_pages()), this
>>>> changes only restore the behavior from memory offline code, but we still
>>>> fail in contig allocation.
>>>>
>>>> From memory offline, we has own path to isolate/migrate page or dissolve
>>>> free hugetlb folios, so I think we don't depends on the __alloc_contig_migrate_range().
>>>>>
>>>>> I admit to not understanding this code terribly well.
>>>>>
>>>> A quick search from [1], the isolate_single_pageblock() is added for
>>>> contig allocation, but it has negative effects on memory hotplug,
>>>> Zi Yan, could you give some comments?
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220425143118.2850746-1-zi.yan@sent.com/
>>>
>>> Probably we can isolate the hugetlb page and use migrate_page() instead of
>>> __alloc_contig_migrate_range() in the section below, since we are targeting
>>> only hugetlb pages here. It should solve the issue.
>>
>> For contig allocation, I think we must isolate/migrate page in
>> __alloc_contig_migrate_range(), but for memory offline,(especially for
>> gigantic hugepage)as mentioned above, we already have own path to
>> isolate/migrate used page and dissolve the free pages,the
>> start_isolate_page_range() only need to mark page range MIGRATE_ISOLATE,
>> that is what we did before b2c9e2fbba32,
>>
>> start_isolate_page_range
>> scan_movable_pages
>> do_migrate_range
>> dissolve_free_hugetlb_folios
>>
>> Do we really need isolate/migrate the hugetlb page and for memory
>> offline path?
>
> For memory offline path, there is do_migrate_range() to move the pages.
> For contig allocation, there is __alloc_contig_migrate_range() after
> isolation to migrate the pages.
>
> The migration code in isolate_single_pageblock() is not needed.
> Something like this would be OK, just skip the page and let either
> do_migrate_range() or __alloc_contig_migrate_range() to handle it:
Oh, right, for alloc_contig_range(), we do have another
__alloc_contig_migrate_range() after start_isolate_page_range(), then we
could drop the following code,
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_isolation.c b/mm/page_isolation.c
> index 042937d5abe4..587d723711c5 100644
> --- a/mm/page_isolation.c
> +++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
> @@ -402,23 +402,6 @@ static int isolate_single_pageblock(unsigned long boundary_pfn, int flags,
>
> #if defined CONFIG_COMPACTION || defined CONFIG_CMA
> if (PageHuge(page)) {
> - int page_mt = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
> - struct compact_control cc = {
> - .nr_migratepages = 0,
> - .order = -1,
> - .zone = page_zone(pfn_to_page(head_pfn)),
> - .mode = MIGRATE_SYNC,
> - .ignore_skip_hint = true,
> - .no_set_skip_hint = true,
> - .gfp_mask = gfp_flags,
> - .alloc_contig = true,
> - };
> - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cc.migratepages);
> -
> - ret = __alloc_contig_migrate_range(&cc, head_pfn,
> - head_pfn + nr_pages, page_mt);
> - if (ret)
> - goto failed;
> pfn = head_pfn + nr_pages;
> continue;
> }
But we need to remove the CONFIG_COMPACTION/CMA too, thought?
diff --git a/mm/page_isolation.c b/mm/page_isolation.c
index 042937d5abe4..785c2d320631 100644
--- a/mm/page_isolation.c
+++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
@@ -395,30 +395,8 @@ static int isolate_single_pageblock(unsigned long
boundary_pfn, int flags,
unsigned long head_pfn = page_to_pfn(head);
unsigned long nr_pages = compound_nr(head);
- if (head_pfn + nr_pages <= boundary_pfn) {
- pfn = head_pfn + nr_pages;
- continue;
- }
-
-#if defined CONFIG_COMPACTION || defined CONFIG_CMA
- if (PageHuge(page)) {
- int page_mt =
get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
- struct compact_control cc = {
- .nr_migratepages = 0,
- .order = -1,
- .zone =
page_zone(pfn_to_page(head_pfn)),
- .mode = MIGRATE_SYNC,
- .ignore_skip_hint = true,
- .no_set_skip_hint = true,
- .gfp_mask = gfp_flags,
- .alloc_contig = true,
- };
- INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cc.migratepages);
-
- ret = __alloc_contig_migrate_range(&cc,
head_pfn,
- head_pfn +
nr_pages, page_mt);
- if (ret)
- goto failed;
+ if (head_pfn + nr_pages <= boundary_pfn ||
+ PageHuge(page))
pfn = head_pfn + nr_pages;
continue;
}
@@ -432,7 +410,6 @@ static int isolate_single_pageblock(unsigned long
boundary_pfn, int flags,
*/
VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(PageLRU(page), page);
VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(__PageMovable(page), page);
-#endif
goto failed;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-15 2:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-13 12:52 Kefeng Wang
2024-08-13 14:03 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-08-13 14:46 ` Kefeng Wang
2024-08-13 14:59 ` Zi Yan
2024-08-14 2:01 ` Kefeng Wang
2024-08-14 14:53 ` Zi Yan
2024-08-15 2:58 ` Kefeng Wang [this message]
2024-08-15 16:43 ` Zi Yan
2024-08-16 0:56 ` Kefeng Wang
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=113f25e0-7eed-405b-9369-bc23b780d315@huawei.com \
--to=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.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