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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 593C9ECE588 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:56:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DAD0218DE for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:56:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1DAD0218DE Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id C2F698E0005; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:56:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id BDFC78E0001; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:56:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id AF5708E0005; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:56:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0056.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.56]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB3C8E0001 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:56:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 35E30907A for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:56:21 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76049041362.02.fuel89_1a506a020341f X-HE-Tag: fuel89_1a506a020341f X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5069 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by imf12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:56:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAEEE59455; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:56:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.117.237] (ovpn-117-237.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.237]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38835C207; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:56:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: Make alloc_gigantic_page() available for general use To: Michal Hocko Cc: Anshuman Khandual , linux-mm@kvack.org, Mike Kravetz , Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , David Rientjes , Andrea Arcangeli , Oscar Salvador , Mel Gorman , Mike Rapoport , Dan Williams , Pavel Tatashin , Matthew Wilcox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1571211293-29974-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <20191016085123.GO317@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat GmbH Message-ID: <679b5c66-8f1b-ec4d-64dd-13fbc440917d@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:56:16 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191016085123.GO317@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:56:19 +0000 (UTC) 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 16.10.19 10:51, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 16-10-19 10:08:21, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 16.10.19 09:34, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > [...] >>> +static bool pfn_range_valid_contig(struct zone *z, unsigned long start_pfn, >>> + unsigned long nr_pages) >>> +{ >>> + unsigned long i, end_pfn = start_pfn + nr_pages; >>> + struct page *page; >>> + >>> + for (i = start_pfn; i < end_pfn; i++) { >>> + page = pfn_to_online_page(i); >>> + if (!page) >>> + return false; >>> + >>> + if (page_zone(page) != z) >>> + return false; >>> + >>> + if (PageReserved(page)) >>> + return false; >>> + >>> + if (page_count(page) > 0) >>> + return false; >>> + >>> + if (PageHuge(page)) >>> + return false; >>> + } >> >> We might still try to allocate a lot of ranges that contain unmovable data >> (we could avoid isolating a lot of page blocks in the first place). I'd love >> to see something like pfn_range_movable() (similar, but different to >> is_mem_section_removable(), which uses has_unmovable_pages()). > > Just to make sure I understand. Do you want has_unmovable_pages to be > called inside pfn_range_valid_contig? I think this requires more thought, as has_unmovable_pages() works on pageblocks only AFAIK. If you try to allocate < MAX_ORDER - 1, you could get a lot of false positives. E.g., if a free "MAX_ORDER - 1" page spans two pageblocks and you only test the second pageblock, you might detect "unmovable" if not taking proper care of the "bigger" free page. (alloc_contig_range() properly works around that issue) > [...] >>> +struct page *alloc_contig_pages(unsigned long nr_pages, gfp_t gfp_mask, >>> + int nid, nodemask_t *nodemask) >>> +{ >>> + unsigned long ret, pfn, flags; >>> + struct zonelist *zonelist; >>> + struct zone *zone; >>> + struct zoneref *z; >>> + >>> + zonelist = node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask); >>> + for_each_zone_zonelist_nodemask(zone, z, zonelist, >>> + gfp_zone(gfp_mask), nodemask) { >> >> One important part is to never use the MOVABLE zone here (otherwise >> unmovable data would end up on the movable zone). But I guess the caller is >> responsible for that (not pass GFP_MOVABLE) like gigantic pages do. > > Well, if the caller uses GFP_MOVABLE then the movability should be > implemented in some form. If that is not the case then it is a bug on > the caller behalf. > >>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags); >>> + >>> + pfn = ALIGN(zone->zone_start_pfn, nr_pages); >> >> This alignment does not make too much sense when allowing passing in !power >> of two orders. Maybe the caller should specify the requested alignment >> instead? Or should we enforce this to be aligned to make our life easier for >> now? > > Are there any usecases that would require than the page alignment? Gigantic pages have to be aligned AFAIK. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb