From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <yasu.isimatu@gmail.com>,
qiuxishi@huawei.com, Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: drop migrate type checks from has_unmovable_pages
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:23:09 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171023052309.GB23082@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171020070220.t4o573zymgto5kmi@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 09:02:20AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 20-10-17 15:50:14, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 07:59:22AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 20-10-17 11:13:29, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:21:18PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > On Thu 19-10-17 10:20:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu 19-10-17 16:33:56, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 09:15:03AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu 19-10-17 11:51:11, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This patch will break the CMA user. As you mentioned, CMA allocation
> > > > > > > > > itself isn't migrateable. So, after a single page is allocated through
> > > > > > > > > CMA allocation, has_unmovable_pages() will return true for this
> > > > > > > > > pageblock. Then, futher CMA allocation request to this pageblock will
> > > > > > > > > fail because it requires isolating the pageblock.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hmm, does this mean that the CMA allocation path depends on
> > > > > > > > has_unmovable_pages to return false here even though the memory is not
> > > > > > > > movable? This sounds really strange to me and kind of abuse of this
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your understanding is correct. Perhaps, abuse or wrong function name.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > function. Which path is that? Can we do the migrate type test theres?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > alloc_contig_range() -> start_isolate_page_range() ->
> > > > > > > set_migratetype_isolate() -> has_unmovable_pages()
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see. It seems that the CMA and memory hotplug have a very different
> > > > > > view on what should happen during isolation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We can add one argument, 'XXX' to set_migratetype_isolate() and change
> > > > > > > it to check migrate type rather than has_unmovable_pages() if 'XXX' is
> > > > > > > specified.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we use the migratetype argument and do the special thing for
> > > > > > MIGRATE_CMA? Like the following diff?
> > > > >
> > > > > And with the full changelog.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > >From 8cbd811d741f5dd93d1b21bb3ef94482a4d0bd32 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > > > > Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:14:02 +0200
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] mm: distinguish CMA and MOVABLE isolation in
> > > > > has_unmovable_pages
> > > > >
> > > > > Joonsoo has noticed that "mm: drop migrate type checks from
> > > > > has_unmovable_pages" would break CMA allocator because it relies on
> > > > > has_unmovable_pages returning false even for CMA pageblocks which in
> > > > > fact don't have to be movable:
> > > > > alloc_contig_range
> > > > > start_isolate_page_range
> > > > > set_migratetype_isolate
> > > > > has_unmovable_pages
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a result of the code sharing between CMA and memory hotplug
> > > > > while each one has a different idea of what has_unmovable_pages should
> > > > > return. This is unfortunate but fixing it properly would require a lot
> > > > > of code duplication.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fix the issue by introducing the requested migrate type argument
> > > > > and special case MIGRATE_CMA case where CMA page blocks are handled
> > > > > properly. This will work for memory hotplug because it requires
> > > > > MIGRATE_MOVABLE.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, alloc_contig_range() can be called with
> > > > MIGRATE_MOVABLE so this patch cannot perfectly fix the problem.
> > >
> > > Yes, alloc_contig_range can be called with MIGRATE_MOVABLE but my
> > > understanding is that only CMA allocator really depends on this weird
> > > semantic and that does MIGRATE_CMA unconditionally.
> >
> > alloc_contig_range() could be called for partial pages in the
> > pageblock. With your patch, this case also fails unnecessarilly if the
> > other pages in the pageblock is pinned.
>
> Is this really the case for GB pages? Do we really want to mess those
No, but, as I mentioned already, this API can be called with less
pages. I know that there is no user with less pages at this moment but
I cannot see any point to reduce this API's capability.
> with CMA blocks and make those blocks basically unusable because GB
> pages are rarely (if at all migrateable)?
>
> > Until now, there is no user calling alloc_contig_range() with partial
> > pages except CMA allocator but API could support it.
>
> I disagree. If this is a CMA thing it should stay that way. The semantic
> is quite confusing already, please let's not make it even worse.
It is already used by other component.
I'm not sure what is the confusing semantic you mentioned. I think
that set_migratetype_isolate() has confusing semantic and should be
fixed since making the pageblock isolated doesn't need to check if
there is unmovable page or not. Do you think that
set_migratetype_isolate() need to check it? If so, why?
> > > > I did a more thinking and found that it's strange to check if there is
> > > > unmovable page in the pageblock during the set_migratetype_isolate().
> > > > set_migratetype_isolate() should be just for setting the migratetype
> > > > of the pageblock. Checking other things should be done by another
> > > > place, for example, before calling the start_isolate_page_range() in
> > > > __offline_pages().
> > >
> > > How do we guarantee the atomicity?
> >
> > What atomicity do you mean?
>
> Currently we are checking and isolating pages under zone lock. If we
> split that we are losing atomicity, aren't we.
I think that it can be done easily.
set_migratetype_isolate() {
lock
__set_migratetype_isolate();
unlock
}
set_migratetype_isolate_if_no_unmovable_pages() {
lock
if (has_unmovable_pages())
fail
else
__set_migratetype_isolate()
unlock
}
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-23 5:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-18 7:08 [PATCH v2 0/2] mm, memory_hotplug: redefine memory offline retry logic Michal Hocko
2017-09-18 7:08 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm, memory_hotplug: do not fail offlining too early Michal Hocko
2017-10-10 12:05 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-10-10 12:27 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-11 2:37 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-10-11 5:19 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-10-11 14:05 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-10-11 14:16 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-11 6:51 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-11 8:04 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-10-11 8:13 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-11 11:17 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-10-11 11:24 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-13 11:42 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-10-13 11:58 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-13 12:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: drop migrate type checks from has_unmovable_pages Michal Hocko
2017-10-13 12:00 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm, page_alloc: fail has_unmovable_pages when seeing reserved pages Michal Hocko
2017-10-13 12:04 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-10-13 12:07 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-17 13:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-10-17 11:41 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: drop migrate type checks from has_unmovable_pages Michael Ellerman
2017-10-17 12:03 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-17 13:02 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-10-19 2:51 ` Joonsoo Kim
2017-10-19 7:15 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-19 7:33 ` Joonsoo Kim
2017-10-19 8:20 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-19 12:21 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-20 2:13 ` Joonsoo Kim
2017-10-20 5:59 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-20 6:50 ` Joonsoo Kim
2017-10-20 7:02 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-23 5:23 ` Joonsoo Kim [this message]
2017-10-23 8:10 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-24 4:44 ` Joonsoo Kim
2017-10-24 7:44 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-24 8:12 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-10-24 12:25 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-26 2:47 ` Joonsoo Kim
2017-10-26 7:41 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-20 7:22 ` Xishi Qiu
2017-10-20 8:17 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-23 5:26 ` Joonsoo Kim
2017-10-26 13:04 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-10-26 13:59 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-18 7:08 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm, memory_hotplug: remove timeout from __offline_memory Michal Hocko
[not found] <AM3PR04MB14892A9D6D2FBCE21B8C1F0FF12B0@AM3PR04MB1489.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
2017-11-13 7:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: drop migrate type checks from has_unmovable_pages Ran Wang
2017-11-13 11:02 ` Michal Hocko
2017-11-14 6:10 ` Ran Wang
2017-11-14 7:06 ` Michal Hocko
2017-11-14 7:45 ` Ran Wang
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=20171023052309.GB23082@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE \
--to=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=qiuxishi@huawei.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=yasu.isimatu@gmail.com \
/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).