ZONE_NORMAL vs. ZONE_MOVABLE (was: Re: [RFC PATCH] rework memory hotplug onlining)

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>]

On Wed 15-03-17 11:48:37, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> writes:
[...]
> Speaking about long term approach,

Not really related to the patch but ok (I hope this will not distract
from the original intention here)...
 
> (I'm not really familiar with the history of memory zones code so please
> bear with me if my questions are stupid)
> 
> Currently when we online memory blocks we need to know where to put the
> boundary between NORMAL and MOVABLE and this is a very hard decision to
> make, no matter if we do this from kernel or from userspace. In theory,
> we just want to avoid redundant limitations with future unplug but we
> don't really know how much memory we'll need for kernel allocations in
> future.

yes, and that is why I am not really all that happy about the whole
movable zones concept. It is basically reintroducing highmem issues from
32b times. But this is the only concept we currently have to provide a
reliable memory hotremove right now.

> What actually stops us from having the following approach:
> 1) Everything is added to MOVABLE
> 2) When we're out of memory for kernel allocations in NORMAL we 'harvest'
> the first MOVABLE block and 'convert' it to NORMAL. It may happen that
> there is no free pages in this block but it was MOVABLE which means we
> can move all allocations somewhere else.
> 3) Freeing the whole 128mb memblock takes time but we don't need to wait
> till it finishes, we just need to satisfy the currently pending
> allocation and we can continue moving everything else in the background.

Although it sounds like a good idea at first sight there are many tiny
details which will make it much more complicated. First of all, how
do we know that the lowmem (resp. all zones normal zones) are under
pressure to reduce the movable zone? Getting OOM for ~__GFP_MOVABLE
request? Isn't that too late already? Sync migration at that state might
be really non trivial (pages might be dirty, pinned etc...). What about
user expectation to hotremove that memory later, should we just break
it?  How do we inflate movable zone back?

> An alternative approach would be to have lists of memblocks which
> constitute ZONE_NORMAL and ZONE_MOVABLE instead of a simple 'NORMAL
> before MOVABLE' rule we have now but I'm not sure this is a viable
> approach with the current code base.

I am not sure I understand.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>