Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm: memory_hotplug: drop memoryless node from fallback lists

["Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>]

Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> writes:

> Hi Ying,
>
> On 2023/10/23 09:18, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Hi Ying,
>>>
>>> On 2023/10/20 15:05, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>> Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> In offline_pages(), if a node becomes memoryless, we
>>>>> will clear its N_MEMORY state by calling node_states_clear_node().
>>>>> But we do this after rebuilding the zonelists by calling
>>>>> build_all_zonelists(), which will cause this memoryless node to
>>>>> still be in the fallback list of other nodes.
>>>> For fallback list, do you mean pgdat->node_zonelists[]?  If so, in
>>>> build_all_zonelists
>>>>     __build_all_zonelists
>>>>       build_zonelists
>>>>         build_zonelists_in_node_order
>>>>           build_zonerefs_node
>>>> populated_zone() will be checked before adding zone into zonelist.
>>>> So, IIUC, we will not try to allocate from the memory less node.
>>>
>>> Normally yes, but if it is the weird topology mentioned in [1], it's
>>> possible to allocate memory from it, it is a memoryless node, but it
>>> also has memory.
>>>
>>> In addition to the above case, I think it's reasonable to remove
>>> memory less node from node_order[] in advance. In this way it will
>>> not to be traversed in build_zonelists_in_node_order().
>>>
>>> [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230212110305.93670-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com/
>> Got it!  Thank you for information.  I think that it may be good to
>> include this in the patch description to avoid potential confusing in
>> the future.
>
> OK, maybe the commit message can be changed to the following:
>
> ```
> In offline_pages(), if a node becomes memoryless, we
> will clear its N_MEMORY state by calling node_states_clear_node().
> But we do this after rebuilding the zonelists by calling
> build_all_zonelists(), which will cause this memoryless node to
> still be in the fallback nodes (node_order[]) of other nodes.
>
> To drop memoryless nodes from fallback nodes in this case, just
> call node_states_clear_node() before calling build_all_zonelists().
>
> In this way, we will not try to allocate pages from memoryless
> node0, then the panic mentioned in [1] will also be fixed. Even though
> this problem has been solved by dropping the NODE_MIN_SIZE constrain
> in x86 [2], it would be better to fix it in the core MM as well.
>
> [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230212110305.93670-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com/
> [2]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231017062215.171670-1-rppt@kernel.org/
>
> ```

This is helpful.  Thanks!

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

> Thanks,
> Qi
>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Huang, Ying
>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Qi
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Huang, Ying
>>>>
>>>>> This will incur
>>>>> some runtime overhead.
>>>>>
>>>>> To drop memoryless node from fallback lists in this case, just
>>>>> call node_states_clear_node() before calling build_all_zonelists().
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>>> [snip]
>>>> --
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Huang, Ying