Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] mm/hugetlb: make hugetlb migration callback CMA aware

From: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	 Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-team@lge.com,  Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
	 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
	 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] mm/hugetlb: make hugetlb migration callback CMA aware
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:27:25 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4NLVwvqtoUb+JJ+WV=7_n800vA+YYC0LyrDS6iQ7wxcdg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200626072324.GT1320@dhcp22.suse.cz>

2020년 6월 26일 (금) 오후 4:23, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>님이 작성:
>
> On Fri 26-06-20 13:49:15, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > 2020년 6월 25일 (목) 오후 8:54, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>님이 작성:
> > >
> > > On Tue 23-06-20 15:13:44, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> > > >
> > > > new_non_cma_page() in gup.c which try to allocate migration target page
> > > > requires to allocate the new page that is not on the CMA area.
> > > > new_non_cma_page() implements it by removing __GFP_MOVABLE flag. This way
> > > > works well for THP page or normal page but not for hugetlb page.
> > >
> > > Could you explain why? I mean why cannot you simply remove __GFP_MOVABLE
> > > flag when calling alloc_huge_page_nodemask and check for it in dequeue
> > > path?
> >
> > If we remove __GFP_MOVABLE when calling alloc_huge_page_nodemask, we cannot
> > use the page in ZONE_MOVABLE on dequeing.
> >
> > __GFP_MOVABLE is not only used for CMA selector but also used for zone
> > selector.  If we clear it, we cannot use the page in the ZONE_MOVABLE
> > even if it's not CMA pages.  For THP page or normal page allocation,
> > there is no way to avoid this weakness without introducing another
> > flag or argument. For me, introducing another flag or argument for
> > these functions looks over-engineering so I don't change them and
> > leave them as they are (removing __GFP_MOVABLE).
> >
> > But, for alloc_huge_page_nodemask(), introducing a new argument
> > doesn't seem to be a problem since it is not a general function but
> > just a migration target allocation function.
>
> I really do not see why hugetlb and only the dequeing part should be
> special. This just leads to a confusion. From the code point of view it
> makes perfect sense to opt out CMA regions for !__GFP_MOVABLE when
> dequeing. So I would rather see a consistent behavior than a special
> case deep in the hugetlb allocator layer.

It seems that there is a misunderstanding. It's possible to opt out CMA regions
for !__GFP_MOVABLE when dequeing. It's reasonable. But, for !__GFP_MOVABLE,
we don't search the hugetlb page on the ZONE_MOVABLE when dequeing since
dequeing zone is limited by gfp_zone(gfp_mask). Solution that Introduces a new
argument doesn't cause this problem while avoiding CMA regions.

Thanks.