From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev @ lists . ozlabs . org"
<linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mm/page_alloc: Ensure that HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER is less than MAX_ORDER
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:47:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <162877dd-e6ba-d465-d301-2956bb034429@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <09284b9a-cfe1-fc49-e1f6-3cf0c1b74c76@arm.com>
On 12.04.21 10:06, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> + linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> + linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
>
> On 4/12/21 9:18 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> pageblock_order must always be less than MAX_ORDER, otherwise it might lead
>> to an warning during boot. A similar problem got fixed on arm64 platform
>> with the commit 79cc2ed5a716 ("arm64/mm: Drop THP conditionality from
>> FORCE_MAX_ZONEORDER"). Assert the above condition before HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER
>> gets assigned as pageblock_order. This will help detect the problem earlier
>> on platforms where HUGETLB_PAGE_SIZE_VARIABLE is enabled.
>>
>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in V2:
>>
>> - Changed WARN_ON() to BUILD_BUG_ON() per David
>>
>> Changes in V1:
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mm/patch/1617947717-2424-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com/
>>
>> mm/page_alloc.c | 11 +++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index cfc72873961d..19283bff4bec 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -6875,10 +6875,17 @@ void __init set_pageblock_order(void)
>> if (pageblock_order)
>> return;
>>
>> - if (HPAGE_SHIFT > PAGE_SHIFT)
>> + if (HPAGE_SHIFT > PAGE_SHIFT) {
>> + /*
>> + * pageblock_order must always be less than
>> + * MAX_ORDER. So does HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER if
>> + * that is being assigned here.
>> + */
>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER >= MAX_ORDER);
>
> Unfortunately the build test fails on both the platforms (powerpc and ia64)
> which subscribe HUGETLB_PAGE_SIZE_VARIABLE and where this check would make
> sense. I some how overlooked the cross compile build failure that actually
> detected this problem.
>
> But wondering why this assert is not holding true ? and how these platforms
> do not see the warning during boot (or do they ?) at mm/vmscan.c:1092 like
> arm64 did.
>
> static int __fragmentation_index(unsigned int order, struct contig_page_info *info)
> {
> unsigned long requested = 1UL << order;
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(order >= MAX_ORDER))
> return 0;
> ....
>
> Can pageblock_order really exceed MAX_ORDER - 1 ?
Ehm, for now I was under the impression that such configurations
wouldn't exist.
And originally, HUGETLB_PAGE_SIZE_VARIABLE was introduced to handle
hugepage sizes that all *smaller* than MAX_ORDER - 1: See d9c234005227
("Do not depend on MAX_ORDER when grouping pages by mobility")
However, looking into init_cma_reserved_pageblock():
if (pageblock_order >= MAX_ORDER) {
i = pageblock_nr_pages;
...
}
But it's kind of weird, isn't it? Let's assume we have MAX_ORDER - 1
correspond to 4 MiB and pageblock_order correspond to 8 MiB.
Sure, we'd be grouping pages in 8 MiB chunks, however, we cannot even
allocate 8 MiB chunks via the buddy. So only alloc_contig_range() could
really grab them (IOW: gigantic pages).
Further, we have code like deferred_free_range(), where we end up
calling __free_pages_core()->...->__free_one_page() with
pageblock_order. Wouldn't we end up setting the buddy order to something
> MAX_ORDER -1 on that path?
Having pageblock_order > MAX_ORDER feels wrong and looks shaky.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-12 8:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1618199302-29335-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
2021-04-12 8:06 ` [PATCH V2] mm/page_alloc: Ensure that HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER is less than MAX_ORDER Anshuman Khandual
2021-04-12 8:47 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2021-04-19 3:45 ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-04-19 10:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2021-04-20 9:03 ` David Hildenbrand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=162877dd-e6ba-d465-d301-2956bb034429@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).