From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.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>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
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, 19 Apr 2021 09:15:49 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ce4f9838-da4b-1423-4123-23c0941a2198@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <162877dd-e6ba-d465-d301-2956bb034429@redhat.com>
On 4/12/21 2:17 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 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")
Right.
>
>
> 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).
Right.
>
> 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?
Agreed.
>
> Having pageblock_order > MAX_ORDER feels wrong and looks shaky.
>
Agreed, definitely does not look right. Lets see what other folks
might have to say on this.
+ Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-19 3:45 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
2021-04-19 3:45 ` Anshuman Khandual [this message]
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=ce4f9838-da4b-1423-4123-23c0941a2198@arm.com \
--to=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=david@redhat.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).