linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.

  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).