All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
To: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <sudaraja@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: add fallback option to allocate virtually contiguous memory
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 09:27:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b8c6e11f-00f3-a89c-6ebc-eef55f92298b@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <01010174769e2b68-a6f3768e-aef8-43c7-b357-a8cb1e17d3eb-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com>

On 10/09/2020 07:05, Sudarshan Rajagopalan wrote:
> When section mappings are enabled, we allocate vmemmap pages from physically
> continuous memory of size PMD_SZIE using vmemmap_alloc_block_buf(). Section
> mappings are good to reduce TLB pressure. But when system is highly fragmented
> and memory blocks are being hot-added at runtime, its possible that such
> physically continuous memory allocations can fail. Rather than failing the
> memory hot-add procedure, add a fallback option to allocate vmemmap pages from
> discontinuous pages using vmemmap_populate_basepages().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <sudaraja@codeaurora.org>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
> ---
>   arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> index 75df62f..a46c7d4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> @@ -1100,6 +1100,7 @@ int __meminit vmemmap_populate(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, int node,
>   	p4d_t *p4dp;
>   	pud_t *pudp;
>   	pmd_t *pmdp;
> +	int ret = 0;
>   
>   	do {
>   		next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
> @@ -1121,15 +1122,23 @@ int __meminit vmemmap_populate(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, int node,
>   			void *p = NULL;
>   
>   			p = vmemmap_alloc_block_buf(PMD_SIZE, node, altmap);
> -			if (!p)
> -				return -ENOMEM;
> +			if (!p) {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
> +				vmemmap_free(start, end, altmap);
> +#endif
> +				ret = -ENOMEM;
> +				break;
> +			}
>   
>   			pmd_set_huge(pmdp, __pa(p), __pgprot(PROT_SECT_NORMAL));
>   		} else
>   			vmemmap_verify((pte_t *)pmdp, node, addr, next);
>   	} while (addr = next, addr != end);
>   
> -	return 0;
> +	if (ret)
> +		return vmemmap_populate_basepages(start, end, node, altmap);
> +	else
> +		return ret;

Style comment: I find this usage of 'ret' confusing. When we assign 
-ENOMEM above that is never actually the return value of the function 
(in that case vmemmap_populate_basepages() provides the actual return 
value).

Also the "return ret" is misleading since we know by that point that 
ret==0 (and the 'else' is redundant).

Can you not just move the call to vmemmap_populate_basepages() up to 
just after the (possible) vmemmap_free() call and remove the 'ret' variable?

AFAICT the call to vmemmap_free() also doesn't need the #ifdef as the 
function is a no-op if CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG isn't set. I also feel you 
need at least a comment to explain Anshuman's point that it looks like 
you're freeing an unmapped area. Although if I'm reading the code 
correctly it seems like the unmapped area will just be skipped.

Steve

>   }
>   #endif	/* !ARM64_SWAPPER_USES_SECTION_MAPS */
>   void vmemmap_free(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> 


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
To: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <sudaraja@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: add fallback option to allocate virtually contiguous memory
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 09:27:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b8c6e11f-00f3-a89c-6ebc-eef55f92298b@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <01010174769e2b68-a6f3768e-aef8-43c7-b357-a8cb1e17d3eb-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com>

On 10/09/2020 07:05, Sudarshan Rajagopalan wrote:
> When section mappings are enabled, we allocate vmemmap pages from physically
> continuous memory of size PMD_SZIE using vmemmap_alloc_block_buf(). Section
> mappings are good to reduce TLB pressure. But when system is highly fragmented
> and memory blocks are being hot-added at runtime, its possible that such
> physically continuous memory allocations can fail. Rather than failing the
> memory hot-add procedure, add a fallback option to allocate vmemmap pages from
> discontinuous pages using vmemmap_populate_basepages().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <sudaraja@codeaurora.org>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
> ---
>   arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> index 75df62f..a46c7d4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> @@ -1100,6 +1100,7 @@ int __meminit vmemmap_populate(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, int node,
>   	p4d_t *p4dp;
>   	pud_t *pudp;
>   	pmd_t *pmdp;
> +	int ret = 0;
>   
>   	do {
>   		next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
> @@ -1121,15 +1122,23 @@ int __meminit vmemmap_populate(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, int node,
>   			void *p = NULL;
>   
>   			p = vmemmap_alloc_block_buf(PMD_SIZE, node, altmap);
> -			if (!p)
> -				return -ENOMEM;
> +			if (!p) {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
> +				vmemmap_free(start, end, altmap);
> +#endif
> +				ret = -ENOMEM;
> +				break;
> +			}
>   
>   			pmd_set_huge(pmdp, __pa(p), __pgprot(PROT_SECT_NORMAL));
>   		} else
>   			vmemmap_verify((pte_t *)pmdp, node, addr, next);
>   	} while (addr = next, addr != end);
>   
> -	return 0;
> +	if (ret)
> +		return vmemmap_populate_basepages(start, end, node, altmap);
> +	else
> +		return ret;

Style comment: I find this usage of 'ret' confusing. When we assign 
-ENOMEM above that is never actually the return value of the function 
(in that case vmemmap_populate_basepages() provides the actual return 
value).

Also the "return ret" is misleading since we know by that point that 
ret==0 (and the 'else' is redundant).

Can you not just move the call to vmemmap_populate_basepages() up to 
just after the (possible) vmemmap_free() call and remove the 'ret' variable?

AFAICT the call to vmemmap_free() also doesn't need the #ifdef as the 
function is a no-op if CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG isn't set. I also feel you 
need at least a comment to explain Anshuman's point that it looks like 
you're freeing an unmapped area. Although if I'm reading the code 
correctly it seems like the unmapped area will just be skipped.

Steve

>   }
>   #endif	/* !ARM64_SWAPPER_USES_SECTION_MAPS */
>   void vmemmap_free(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> 


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-09-10  8:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <01010174769e2b68-a6f3768e-aef8-43c7-b357-a8cb1e17d3eb-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com>
2020-09-10  6:45 ` [PATCH] arm64/mm: add fallback option to allocate virtually contiguous memory Anshuman Khandual
2020-09-10  6:45   ` Anshuman Khandual
2020-09-10  8:08   ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-10  8:08     ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-10 10:58     ` Anshuman Khandual
2020-09-10 10:58       ` Anshuman Khandual
2020-09-10  8:27   ` sudaraja
2020-09-10 11:16     ` Anshuman Khandual
2020-09-10 11:16       ` Anshuman Khandual
2020-09-10  8:27   ` sudaraja
2020-09-10  8:27 ` Steven Price [this message]
2020-09-10  8:27   ` Steven Price
2020-09-10 10:50   ` Anshuman Khandual
2020-09-10 10:50     ` Anshuman Khandual
2020-09-10 20:48     ` sudaraja
2020-09-21 17:43       ` Will Deacon
2020-09-21 17:43         ` Will Deacon
2020-09-10 20:48     ` sudaraja
2020-09-10  6:05 Sudarshan Rajagopalan
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-09-10  6:05 Sudarshan Rajagopalan

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=b8c6e11f-00f3-a89c-6ebc-eef55f92298b@arm.com \
    --to=steven.price@arm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=logang@deltatee.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=sudaraja@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.