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=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, 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 C7043C5519F for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 13:33:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E7AD206F7 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 13:33:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3E7AD206F7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id AE1766B0073; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 08:33:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A91006B0074; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 08:33:51 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9801F6B0075; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 08:33:51 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0087.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.87]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81AD26B0073 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 08:33:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B1618249980 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 13:33:51 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77523033462.03.guide43_2f0a89a27377 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29EC028A4E8 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 13:33:51 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: guide43_2f0a89a27377 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4122 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 13:33:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EAF8AC23; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 13:33:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 13:33:46 +0000 From: Mel Gorman To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Vlastimil Babka , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Qian Cai , Michal Hocko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport , Baoquan He Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: compaction: avoid fast_isolate_around() to set pageblock_skip on reserved pages Message-ID: <20201125133346.GN3306@suse.de> References: <35F8AADA-6CAA-4BD6-A4CF-6F29B3F402A4@redhat.com> <20201125103933.GM3306@suse.de> <5f01bde6-fe31-9b0e-f288-06b82598a8b3@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5f01bde6-fe31-9b0e-f288-06b82598a8b3@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) 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 Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 12:04:15PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 25.11.20 11:39, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 07:45:30AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>> Something must have changed more recently than v5.1 that caused the > >>> zoneid of reserved pages to be wrong, a possible candidate for the > >>> real would be this change below: > >>> > >>> + __init_single_page(pfn_to_page(pfn), pfn, 0, 0); > >>> > >> > >> Before that change, the memmap of memory holes were only zeroed out. So the zones/nid was 0, however, pages were not reserved and had a refcount of zero - resulting in other issues. > >> > >> Most pfn walkers shouldn???t mess with reserved pages and simply skip them. That would be the right fix here. > >> > > > > Ordinarily yes, pfn walkers should not care about reserved pages but it's > > still surprising that the node/zone linkages would be wrong for memory > > holes. If they are in the middle of a zone, it means that a hole with > > valid struct pages could be mistaken for overlapping nodes (if the hole > > was in node 1 for example) or overlapping zones which is just broken. > > I agree within zones - but AFAIU, the issue is reserved memory between > zones, right? > It can also occur in the middle of the zone. > Assume your end of memory falls within a section - what would be the > right node/zone for such a memory hole at the end of the section? Assuming a hole is not MAX_ORDER-aligned but there is real memory within the page block, then the node/zone for the struct pages backing the hole should match the real memorys node and zone. As it stands, with the uninitialised node/zone, certain checks like page_is_buddy(): page_zone_id(page) != page_zone_id(buddy) may only work by co-incidence. page_is_buddy() happens to work anyway because PageBuddy(buddy) would never be true for a PageReserved page. > With > memory hotplug after such a hole, we can easily have multiple > nodes/zones spanning such a hole, unknown before hotplug. > When hotplugged, the same logic would apply. Where the hole is not aligned, the struct page linkages should match the "real" memory". > > It would partially paper over the issue that setting the pageblock type > > based on a reserved page. I agree that compaction should not be returning > > pfns that are outside of the zone range because that is buggy in itself > > but valid struct pages should have valid information. I don't think we > > want to paper over that with unnecessary PageReserved checks. > > Agreed as long as we can handle that issue using range checks. > I think it'll be ok as long as the struct pages within a 1<<(MAX_ORDER-1) range have proper linkages. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs