Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] mm/page_alloc: conditionally split > pageblock_order pages in free_one_page() and move_freepages_block_isolate()

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 09.12.24 20:23, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2024, at 14:01, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> 
>> On 12/6/24 10:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> Let's special-case for the common scenarios that:
>>>
>>> (a) We are freeing pages <= pageblock_order
>>> (b) We are freeing a page <= MAX_PAGE_ORDER and all pageblocks match
>>>      (especially, no mixture of isolated and non-isolated pageblocks)
>>
>> Well in many of those cases we could also just adjust the pageblocks... But
>> perhaps they indeed shouldn't differ in the first place, unless there's an
>> isolation attempt.
>>
>>> When we encounter a > MAX_PAGE_ORDER page, it can only come from
>>> alloc_contig_range(), and we can process MAX_PAGE_ORDER chunks.
>>>
>>> When we encounter a >pageblock_order <= MAX_PAGE_ORDER page,
>>> check whether all pageblocks match, and if so (common case), don't
>>> split them up just for the buddy to merge them back.
>>>
>>> This makes sure that when we free MAX_PAGE_ORDER chunks to the buddy,
>>> for example during system startups, memory onlining, or when isolating
>>> consecutive pageblocks via alloc_contig_range()/memory offlining, that
>>> we don't unnecessarily split up what we'll immediately merge again,
>>> because the migratetypes match.
>>>
>>> Rename split_large_buddy() to __free_one_page_maybe_split(), to make it
>>> clearer what's happening, and handle in it only natural buddy orders,
>>> not the alloc_contig_range(__GFP_COMP) special case: handle that in
>>> free_one_page() only.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>
>> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz
>>
>> Hm but noticed something:
>>
>>> +static void __free_one_page_maybe_split(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
>>> +		unsigned long pfn, int order, fpi_t fpi_flags)
>>> +{
>>> +	const unsigned long end_pfn = pfn + (1 << order);
>>> +	int mt = get_pfnblock_migratetype(page, pfn);
>>> +
>>> +	VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(order > MAX_PAGE_ORDER);
>>>   	VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!IS_ALIGNED(pfn, 1 << order));
>>>   	/* Caller removed page from freelist, buddy info cleared! */
>>>   	VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(PageBuddy(page));
>>>
>>> -	if (order > pageblock_order)
>>> -		order = pageblock_order;
>>> -
>>> -	while (pfn != end) {
>>> -		int mt = get_pfnblock_migratetype(page, pfn);
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * With CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION, we might be freeing MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES
>>> +	 * pages that cover pageblocks with different migratetypes; for example
>>> +	 * only some migratetypes might be MIGRATE_ISOLATE. In that (unlikely)
>>> +	 * case, fallback to freeing individual pageblocks so they get put
>>> +	 * onto the right lists.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION) ||
>>> +	    likely(order <= pageblock_order) ||
>>> +	    pfnblock_migratetype_equal(pfn + pageblock_nr_pages, end_pfn, mt)) {
>>> +		__free_one_page(page, pfn, zone, order, mt, fpi_flags);
>>> +		return;
>>> +	}
>>>
>>> -		__free_one_page(page, pfn, zone, order, mt, fpi);
>>> -		pfn += 1 << order;
>>> +	while (pfn != end_pfn) {
>>> +		mt = get_pfnblock_migratetype(page, pfn);
>>> +		__free_one_page(page, pfn, zone, pageblock_order, mt, fpi_flags);
>>> +		pfn += pageblock_nr_pages;
>>>   		page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
>>
>> This predates your patch, but seems potentially dangerous to attempt
>> pfn_to_page(end_pfn) with SPARSEMEM and no vmemmap and the end_pfn perhaps
>> being just outside of the valid range? Should we change that?
>>
>> But seems this code was initially introduced as part of Johannes'
>> migratetype hygiene series.
> 
> It starts as split_free_page() from commit b2c9e2fbba32 ("mm: make
> alloc_contig_range work at pageblock granularity”), but harmless since
> it is only used to split a buddy page. Then commit fd919a85cd55 ("mm:
> page_isolation: prepare for hygienic freelists") refactored it, which
> should be fine, since it is still used for the same purpose in page
> isolation. Then commit e98337d11bbd ("mm/contig_alloc: support __GFP_COMP")
> used it for gigantic hugetlb.
> 
> For SPARSEMEM && !SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP, PFNs are contiguous, vmemmap might not
> be. The code above using pfn in the loop might be fine. And since order
> is provided, unless the caller is providing a falsely large order, pfn
> should be valid. Or am I missing anything?

I think the question is, what happens when we call pfn_to_page() on a 
PFN that falls into a memory section that is either offline, doesn't 
have a memmap, or does not exist.

With CONFIG_SPARSEMEM, we do a

struct mem_section *__sec = __pfn_to_section(__pfn)
__section_mem_map_addr(__sec) + __pfn;

__pfn_to_section() can return NULL, in which case 
__section_mem_map_addr() would dereference NULL.

I assume it ould happen in corner cases, if we'd exceed 
NR_SECTION_ROOTS. (IOW, large memory, and we free a page that is at the 
very end of physical memory).

Likely, we should do the pfn_to_page() before the __free_one_page() call.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb