From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 346DEC433E0 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:32:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB4B64E3E for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:32:04 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5FB4B64E3E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ziepe.ca Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id BBAFB6B0006; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:32:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B6A1A6B006C; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:32:03 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A32976B006E; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:32:03 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0009.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.9]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9BE6B0006 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:32:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin27.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6AF181AF5CC for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:32:03 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77832081726.27.stem89_200ef7427656 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin27.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 167133D669 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:32:03 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: stem89_200ef7427656 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5313 Received: from mail-qt1-f174.google.com (mail-qt1-f174.google.com [209.85.160.174]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:32:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-f174.google.com with SMTP id o30so1617084qtd.12 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:32:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ziepe.ca; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=0/TTwRZM5UWkeVt7hK50tjPjIUS/Pw+aCUTdCE6xC00=; b=R/KR62gElCW/P34+zKXp/hSu2ZY5/ttxG2NPuBugoIHOJgJvFh0N1n5yTEoFM1sm4z zmX0GHIwrq99bVreyqpHUroTjFhGXockDFXTHOb0Leb/rw3G7weLzZi1Vob0MB7Xphfu iMZMyPoBha2eTTQeMYy3ERTKQF0kqG8zysxswJszTOdvgBu5Ed1IvxC3y+aD1iZ7RNbr gudypmPAKl9HtKArAzbyqnrEpm0rXtUwbCbthidw5oCQAMo4ruhQ/6aMbyyZ5nF3fQhN OuS+ovN4PrZYFHYBM10dxgIPHtwey4XdfR/aiSZzlXKnU2ftPFtTQpp1nDFRVjDi2gT8 iMQg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=0/TTwRZM5UWkeVt7hK50tjPjIUS/Pw+aCUTdCE6xC00=; b=bIXKjPgzO0ib+AEu1Xen9NEtkbqecjtA0ikcoTTnP9jLXQXLPP0rzKjXvcWq4HAOUr B9pBzb1RBxGg+qa9JyxxMcpZvIAwesCGcxYTqsaGsV8WGGffclQEg61k3WOIG2Hj0+wo xhB+D/z1lMumaZg71hoen2BkNNrWiPmQ3ERE711J2EsBuZLEzu0vHFHWPc+LqChMagJE b9obPhOCSQ8dJUaXite9Krr0hf+Zo1Yq1i+XvvBRqEiq7kJ6DSgg+OKgS6puFUuFzWJI SX3YUrJsCsTUVNggv+uYvjVXRSSUAy0GYkPNhVFSHzk3TQvQqA6rHKLfghyA3IbZ1P6h iA9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5314tcU94IsardfY9ZMNIX+wAm/6tHU6+6Ehzt95XND12c8w6RPX EI9OxCJsi913S3i6vLOsIdGwQw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwEA6bqbvvkVsfcbWVRnFE/CFIp5IrjcT3JJfF32pFPZja2DfF74jrm0qh5CHPzi5RQB9ireA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4a83:: with SMTP id l3mr5273238qtq.350.1613669521898; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:32:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from ziepe.ca (hlfxns017vw-142-162-115-133.dhcp-dynamic.fibreop.ns.bellaliant.net. [142.162.115.133]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f188sm4392003qkj.110.2021.02.18.09.32.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:32:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from jgg by mlx with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1lCn9k-00B5jy-Tc; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:32:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:32:00 -0400 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: Zi Yan Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton , Mike Kravetz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Davidlohr Bueso , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Andrea Arcangeli , Oscar Salvador , Joao Martins , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hugetlb: fix update_and_free_page contig page struct assumption Message-ID: <20210218173200.GA2643399@ziepe.ca> References: <20210217184926.33567-1-mike.kravetz@oracle.com> <20210217110252.185c7f5cd5a87c3f7b0c0144@linux-foundation.org> <20210218144554.GS2858050@casper.infradead.org> <20210218172500.GA4718@ziepe.ca> <19612088-4856-4BE9-A731-BB903511F352@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19612088-4856-4BE9-A731-BB903511F352@nvidia.com> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:27:58PM -0500, Zi Yan wrote: > On 18 Feb 2021, at 12:25, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 02:45:54PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 11:02:52AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > >>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:49:25 -0800 Mike Kravetz wrote: > >>>> page structs are not guaranteed to be contiguous for gigantic pages. The > >>> > >>> June 2014. That's a long lurk time for a bug. I wonder if some later > >>> commit revealed it. > >> > >> I would suggest that gigantic pages have not seen much use. Certainly > >> performance with Intel CPUs on benchmarks that I've been involved with > >> showed lower performance with 1GB pages than with 2MB pages until quite > >> recently. > > > > I suggested in another thread that maybe it is time to consider > > dropping this "feature" > > You mean dropping gigantic page support in hugetlb? No, I mean dropping support for arches that want to do: tail_page != head_page + tail_page_nr because they can't allocate the required page array either virtually or physically contiguously. It seems like quite a burden on the core mm for a very niche, and maybe even non-existant, case. It was originally done for PPC, can these PPC systems use VMEMMAP now? > > The cost to fix GUP to be compatible with this will hurt normal > > GUP performance - and again, that nobody has hit this bug in GUP > > further suggests the feature isn't used.. > > A easy fix might be to make gigantic hugetlb page depends on > CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP, which guarantee all struct pages are contiguous. Yes, exactly. Jason