Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/19] mm/sparsemem: Use alloc_table() for table allocations

From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>,
	"Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
	"linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"vbabka@suse.cz" <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	"Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@kernel.org>,
	"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
	"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	"shakeelb@google.com" <shakeelb@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/19] mm/sparsemem: Use alloc_table() for table allocations
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 10:22:44 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YS8qRHrGzevns32P@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f77f3312a1b17b8f8de2ccf0f40f9f19f4a9f151.camel@intel.com>

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 06:25:23PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-08-31 at 11:55 +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 04:59:19PM -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> <trim> 
> > > -static void * __meminit vmemmap_alloc_block_zero(unsigned long
> > > size, int node)
> > > +static void * __meminit vmemmap_alloc_table(int node)
> > >  {
> > > -	void *p = vmemmap_alloc_block(size, node);
> > > +	void *p;
> > > +	if (slab_is_available()) {
> > > +		struct page *page = alloc_table_node(GFP_KERNEL |
> > > __GFP_ZERO, node);
> > 
> > This change removes __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL|__GFP_NOWARN from the
> > original gfp
> > vmemmap_alloc_block() used.
> Oh, yea good point. Hmm, I guess grouped pages could be aware of that
> flag too. Would be a small addition, but it starts to grow
> unfortunately.
> 
> > Not sure __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL is really needed in
> > vmemmap_alloc_block_zero()
> > at the first place, though.
> Looks like due to a real issue:
> 055e4fd96e95b0eee0d92fd54a26be7f0d3bcad0

I believe the issue was with memory map blocks rather than with page
tables, but since sparse-vmemmap uses the same vmemmap_alloc_block() for
both, the GFP flag got stick with both.

I'm not really familiar with reclaim internals to say if
__GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL would help much for order-0 allocation.

Vlastimil, can you comment on this?

> I think it should not affect PKS tables for now, so maybe I can make
> separate logic instead. I'll look into it. Thanks.
> > 
> > More broadly, maybe it makes sense to split boot time and memory
> > hotplug
> > paths and use pxd_alloc() for the latter.
> > 
> > > +
> > > +		if (!page)
> > > +			return NULL;
> > > +		return page_address(page);
> > > +	}
> > >  
> > > +	p = __earlyonly_bootmem_alloc(node, PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE,
> > > __pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS));
> > 
> > Opportunistically rename to __earlyonly_memblock_alloc()? ;-)
> > 
> Heh, I can. Just grepping, there are several other instances of
> foo_bootmem() only calling foo_memblock() pattern scattered about. Or
> maybe I'm missing the distinction.

Heh, I didn't do s/bootmem/memblock/g, so foo_bootmem() are reminders we
had bootmem allocator once.
Maybe it's a good time to remove them :)

> <trim>

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.