From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: <vbabka@suse.cz>, <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_isolation: don't putback unisolated page
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 20:08:53 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3a9921cd-1393-f67c-1002-1320b9d1668d@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2b103abc-2921-9d8a-7280-1d6b451c34f4@redhat.com>
On 2021/9/6 20:01, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.09.21 13:50, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 06.09.21 13:32, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>> On 2021/9/6 17:40, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 04.09.21 11:18, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>>> If __isolate_free_page() failed, due to zone watermark check, the page is
>>>>> still on the free list. But this page will be put back to free list again
>>>>> via __putback_isolated_page() now. This may trigger page->flags checks in
>>>>> __free_one_page() if PageReported is set. Or we will corrupt the free list
>>>>> because list_add() will be called for pages already on another list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 3c605096d315 ("mm/page_alloc: restrict max order of merging on isolated pageblock")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> mm/page_isolation.c | 6 ++----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/page_isolation.c b/mm/page_isolation.c
>>>>> index 9bb562d5d194..7d70d772525c 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/page_isolation.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
>>>>> @@ -93,10 +93,8 @@ static void unset_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, unsigned migratetype)
>>>>> buddy_pfn = __find_buddy_pfn(pfn, order);
>>>>> buddy = page + (buddy_pfn - pfn);
>>>>> - if (!is_migrate_isolate_page(buddy)) {
>>>>> - __isolate_free_page(page, order);
>>>>> - isolated_page = true;
>>>>> - }
>>>>> + if (!is_migrate_isolate_page(buddy))
>>>>> + isolated_page = !!__isolate_free_page(page, order);
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't we much rather force to ignore watermarks here and make sure __isolate_free_page() never fails?
>>>
>>> It seems it is not easy to force to ignore watermarks here. And it's not a problem
>>> if __isolate_free_page() fails because we can do move_freepages_block() anyway.
>>> What do you think? Many thanks.
>>
>> I'm wondering if all this complexity in this function is even required. What about something like this: (completely untested)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_isolation.c b/mm/page_isolation.c
>> index bddf788f45bf..29ff2fcb339c 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_isolation.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
>> @@ -66,12 +66,10 @@ static int set_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, int migratetype, int isol_
>> static void unset_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, unsigned migratetype)
>> {
>> + bool buddy_merge_possible = false;
>> struct zone *zone;
>> unsigned long flags, nr_pages;
>> - bool isolated_page = false;
>> unsigned int order;
>> - unsigned long pfn, buddy_pfn;
>> - struct page *buddy;
>> zone = page_zone(page);
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
>> @@ -79,26 +77,15 @@ static void unset_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, unsigned migratetype)
>> goto out;
>> /*
>> - * Because freepage with more than pageblock_order on isolated
>> - * pageblock is restricted to merge due to freepage counting problem,
>> - * it is possible that there is free buddy page.
>> - * move_freepages_block() doesn't care of merge so we need other
>> - * approach in order to merge them. Isolation and free will make
>> - * these pages to be merged.
>> + * If our free page spans at least this whole pageblock and could
>> + * eventually get merged into an even bigger page, go via
>> + * __putback_isolated_page(), because move_freepages_block() won't
>> + * trigger merging of free pages.
>> */
>> if (PageBuddy(page)) {
>> order = buddy_order(page);
>> - if (order >= pageblock_order && order < MAX_ORDER - 1) {
>> - pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
>> - buddy_pfn = __find_buddy_pfn(pfn, order);
>> - buddy = page + (buddy_pfn - pfn);
>> -
>> - if (pfn_valid_within(buddy_pfn) &&
>> - !is_migrate_isolate_page(buddy)) {
>> - __isolate_free_page(page, order);
>> - isolated_page = true;
>> - }
>> - }
>> + if (order >= pageblock_order && order < MAX_ORDER - 1)
>> + buddy_merge_possible = true;
>> }
>> /*
>> @@ -111,12 +98,12 @@ static void unset_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, unsigned migratetype)
>> * onlining - just onlined memory won't immediately be considered for
>> * allocation.
>> */
>> - if (!isolated_page) {
>> + if (!buddy_merge_possible) {
>> nr_pages = move_freepages_block(zone, page, migratetype, NULL);
>> __mod_zone_freepage_state(zone, nr_pages, migratetype);
>> }
>> set_pageblock_migratetype(page, migratetype);
>> - if (isolated_page)
>> + if (buddy_merge_possible)
>> __putback_isolated_page(page, order, migratetype);
>> zone->nr_isolate_pageblock--;
>> out:
>
> Okay, I just had another look -- that won't work because as you correctly said, it still is on the freelist ...
>
> So your fix is certainly correct :)
Many thanks for your effort and suggestion. :)
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-06 12:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-04 9:18 Miaohe Lin
2021-09-06 9:40 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-06 11:32 ` Miaohe Lin
2021-09-06 11:50 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-06 12:01 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-06 12:08 ` Miaohe Lin [this message]
2021-09-06 12:02 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-06 12:11 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-06 12:45 ` Miaohe Lin
2021-09-06 12:49 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-07 1:46 ` Miaohe Lin
2021-09-07 9:52 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-07 8:08 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-09-07 9:56 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-08 22:42 ` John Hubbard
2021-09-09 8:56 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-09 9:07 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-09-09 9:37 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-09 16:50 ` John Hubbard
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=3a9921cd-1393-f67c-1002-1320b9d1668d@huawei.com \
--to=linmiaohe@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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