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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 82D37C4CEC6 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:42:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40FDF214AE for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:42:16 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 40FDF214AE Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id BEB916B0007; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:42:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B996C6B0008; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:42:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A61C56B000A; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:42:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0066.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.66]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B16A6B0007 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:42:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin01.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D24009093 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:42:14 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 75926684988.01.skate17_87ed17b4d2d12 X-HE-Tag: skate17_87ed17b4d2d12 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6637 Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by imf37.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:42:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Sep 2019 08:42:09 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,492,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="197265089" Received: from ahduyck-desk1.jf.intel.com ([10.7.198.76]) by orsmga002-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Sep 2019 08:42:08 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/8] stg mail -e --version=v9 \ From: Alexander Duyck To: Michal Hocko , Alexander Duyck Cc: virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, kvm list , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Catalin Marinas , David Hildenbrand , Dave Hansen , LKML , Matthew Wilcox , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , will@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Oscar Salvador , Yang Zhang , Pankaj Gupta , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Nitesh Narayan Lal , Rik van Riel , lcapitulino@redhat.com, "Wang, Wei W" , Andrea Arcangeli , ying.huang@intel.com, Paolo Bonzini , Dan Williams , Fengguang Wu , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Mel Gorman , Vlastimil Babka Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:42:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20190912091925.GM4023@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20190907172225.10910.34302.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20190910124209.GY2063@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190910144713.GF2063@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190910175213.GD4023@dhcp22.suse.cz> <1d7de9f9f4074f67c567dbb4cc1497503d739e30.camel@linux.intel.com> <20190911113619.GP4023@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190912091925.GM4023@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5 (3.30.5-1.fc29) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Thu, 2019-09-12 at 11:19 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 11-09-19 08:12:03, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:36 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Tue 10-09-19 14:23:40, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > > [...] > > > > We don't put any limitations on the allocator other then that it needs to > > > > clean up the metadata on allocation, and that it cannot allocate a page > > > > that is in the process of being reported since we pulled it from the > > > > free_list. If the page is a "Reported" page then it decrements the > > > > reported_pages count for the free_area and makes sure the page doesn't > > > > exist in the "Boundary" array pointer value, if it does it moves the > > > > "Boundary" since it is pulling the page. > > > > > > This is still a non-trivial limitation on the page allocation from an > > > external code IMHO. I cannot give any explicit reason why an ordering on > > > the free list might matter (well except for page shuffling which uses it > > > to make physical memory pattern allocation more random) but the > > > architecture seems hacky and dubious to be honest. It shoulds like the > > > whole interface has been developed around a very particular and single > > > purpose optimization. > > > > How is this any different then the code that moves a page that will > > likely be merged to the tail though? > > I guess you are referring to the page shuffling. If that is the case > then this is an integral part of the allocator for a reason and it is > very well obvious in the code including the consequences. I do not > really like an idea of hiding similar constrains behind a generic > looking feature which is completely detached from the allocator and so > any future change of the allocator might subtly break it. > > > In our case the "Reported" page is likely going to be much more > > expensive to allocate and use then a standard page because it will be > > faulted back in. In such a case wouldn't it make sense for us to want > > to keep the pages that don't require faults ahead of those pages in > > the free_list so that they are more likely to be allocated? > > OK, I was suspecting this would pop out. And this is exactly why I > didn't like an idea of an external code imposing a non obvious constrains > to the allocator. You simply cannot count with any ordering with the > page allocator. We used to distinguish cache hot/cold pages in the past > and pushed pages to the specific end of the free list but that has been > removed. There are other potential changes like that possible. Shuffling > is a good recent example. > > Anyway I am not a maintainer of this code. I would really like to hear > opinions from Mel and Vlastimil here (now CCed - the thread starts > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190907172225.10910.34302.stgit@localhost.localdomain. One alternative I could do if we are wanting to make things more obvious would be to add yet another add_to_free_list_XXX function that would be used specifically for reported pages. The only real requirement I have is that we have to insert reported pages such that we generate a continuous block without interleaving non-reported pages in between. So as long as reported pages are always inserted at the boundary/iterator when we are actively reporting on a section then I can guarantee the list won't have gaps formed. Also as far as the concerns about this being an external user, one thing I can do is break up the headers a bit and define an internal header in mm/ that defines all the items used by the page allocator, and another in include/linux/ that defines what is used by devices when receiving the notifications. It would then help to reduce the likelihood of an outside entity messing with the page allocator too much.