Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v13 05/12] mm: hugetlb: allocate the vmemmap pages associated with each HugeTLB page

From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
	 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	paulmck@kernel.org, mchehab+huawei@kernel.org,
	pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com,
	"Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	oneukum@suse.com, anshuman.khandual@arm.com, jroedel@suse.de,
	"Mina Almasry" <almasrymina@google.com>,
	"David Rientjes" <rientjes@google.com>,
	"Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org>,
	"Michal Hocko" <mhocko@suse.com>,
	"Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>,
	"HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)" <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>,
	"Xiongchun duan" <duanxiongchun@bytedance.com>,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Linux Memory Management List" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v13 05/12] mm: hugetlb: allocate the vmemmap pages associated with each HugeTLB page
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 21:08:35 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMZfGtXXPpvnGotwgYj5G5DkWM1e+McLOLM3pTGuUui54f5TFg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMZfGtWCu95Qve8p9mH7C7rm=F+znsc8+VL_6Z-_k4e5hAHzhA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 8:37 PM Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 6:36 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 26.01.21 16:56, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 26.01.21 16:34, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:10:53PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > >>> The real issue seems to be discarding the vmemmap on any memory that has
> > >>> movability constraints - CMA and ZONE_MOVABLE; otherwise, as discussed, we
> > >>> can reuse parts of the thingy we're freeing for the vmemmap. Not that it
> > >>> would be ideal: that once-a-huge-page thing will never ever be a huge page
> > >>> again - but if it helps with OOM in corner cases, sure.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, that is one way, but I am not sure how hard would it be to implement.
> > >> Plus the fact that as you pointed out, once that memory is used for vmemmap
> > >> array, we cannot use it again.
> > >> Actually, we would fragment the memory eventually?
> > >>
> > >>> Possible simplification: don't perform the optimization for now with free
> > >>> huge pages residing on ZONE_MOVABLE or CMA. Certainly not perfect: what
> > >>> happens when migrating a huge page from ZONE_NORMAL to (ZONE_MOVABLE|CMA)?
> > >>
> > >> But if we do not allow theose pages to be in ZONE_MOVABLE or CMA, there is no
> > >> point in migrate them, right?
> > >
> > > Well, memory unplug "could" still work and migrate them and
> > > alloc_contig_range() "could in the future" still want to migrate them
> > > (virtio-mem, gigantic pages, powernv memtrace). Especially, the latter
> > > two don't work with ZONE_MOVABLE/CMA. But, I mean, it would be fair
> > > enough to say "there are no guarantees for
> > > alloc_contig_range()/offline_pages() with ZONE_NORMAL, so we can break
> > > these use cases when a magic switch is flipped and make these pages
> > > non-migratable anymore".
> > >
> > > I assume compaction doesn't care about huge pages either way, not sure
> > > about numa balancing etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > However, note that there is a fundamental issue with any approach that
> > > allocates a significant amount of unmovable memory for user-space
> > > purposes (excluding CMA allocations for unmovable stuff, CMA is
> > > special): pairing it with ZONE_MOVABLE becomes very tricky as your user
> > > space might just end up eating all kernel memory, although the system
> > > still looks like there is plenty of free memory residing in
> > > ZONE_MOVABLE. I mentioned that in the context of secretmem in a reduced
> > > form as well.
> > >
> > > We theoretically have that issue with dynamic allocation of gigantic
> > > pages, but it's something a user explicitly/rarely triggers and it can
> > > be documented to cause problems well enough. We'll have the same issue
> > > with GUP+ZONE_MOVABLE that Pavel is fixing right now - but GUP is
> > > already known to be broken in various ways and that it has to be treated
> > > in a special way. I'd like to limit the nasty corner cases.
> > >
> > > Of course, we could have smart rules like "don't online memory to
> > > ZONE_MOVABLE automatically when the magic switch is active". That's just
> > > ugly, but could work.
> > >
> >
> > Extending on that, I just discovered that only x86-64, ppc64, and arm64
> > really support hugepage migration.
> >
> > Maybe one approach with the "magic switch" really would be to disable
> > hugepage migration completely in hugepage_migration_supported(), and
> > consequently making hugepage_movable_supported() always return false.
> >
> > Huge pages would never get placed onto ZONE_MOVABLE/CMA and cannot be
> > migrated. The problem I describe would apply (careful with using
> > ZONE_MOVABLE), but well, it can at least be documented.
>
> Thanks for your explanation.
>
> All thinking seems to be introduced by encountering OOM. :-(
>
> In order to move forward and free the hugepage. We should add some
> restrictions below.
>
> 1. Only free the hugepage which is allocated from the ZONE_NORMAL.
           ^^
Sorry. Here "free" should be "optimize".

> 2. Disable hugepage migration when this feature is enabled.
> 3. Using GFP_ATOMIC to allocate vmemmap pages firstly (it can reduce
>    memory fragmentation), if it fails, we use part of the hugepage to
>    remap.
>
> Hi Oscar, Mike and David H
>
> What's your opinion about this? Should we take this approach?
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> >
> > David / dhildenb
> >