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=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 7F522C07E95 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 08:50:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AFF661CC3 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 08:50:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231126AbhGGIx1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jul 2021 04:53:27 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([195.135.220.29]:40484 "EHLO smtp-out2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230310AbhGGIx0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jul 2021 04:53:26 -0400 Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B732003F; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 08:50:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1625647845; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=CjPSVe+JcATwl+mTh/cMUbmmA1jVuqsHEJ4EAY3GkiA=; b=XMQs/DbKNkbKMcxhmLfss1zUa8YfEzWzVpaNPi7qSx8Dih7G0NRpDUx35I7gbXiuTBFqb1 xilQjZarez3shhtEJ1psvee8XY7guo+ujiDKIi/S7Sb6QLM7uDaMz5kXESsUJO46kobrRo TOx7J2jHfZlQ1Rus80MeoSInJY4oNzo= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B308A3B8A; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 08:50:45 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 10:50:44 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , Mel Gorman , Christoph Hellwig , Matthew Wilcox , Nicholas Piggin , Hillf Danton , Oleksiy Avramchenko , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/vmalloc: Use batched page requests in bulk-allocator Message-ID: References: <20210705170537.43060-1-urezki@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210705170537.43060-1-urezki@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 05-07-21 19:05:36, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote: > In case of simultaneous vmalloc allocations, for example it is 1GB and > 12 CPUs my system is able to hit "BUG: soft lockup" for !CONFIG_PREEMPT > kernel. > > > [ 62.512621] RIP: 0010:__alloc_pages_bulk+0xa9f/0xbb0 > [ 62.512628] Code: ff 8b 44 24 48 44 29 f8 83 f8 01 0f 84 ea fe ff ff e9 07 f6 ff ff 48 8b 44 24 60 48 89 28 e9 00 f9 ff ff fb 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 e8 fd ff ff 65 48 01 51 10 e9 3e fe ff ff 48 8b 44 24 78 4d 89 > [ 62.512629] RSP: 0018:ffffa7bfc29ffd20 EFLAGS: 00000206 > [ 62.512631] RAX: 0000000000000200 RBX: ffffcd5405421888 RCX: ffff8c36ffdeb928 > [ 62.512632] RDX: 0000000000040000 RSI: ffffa896f06b2ff8 RDI: ffffcd5405421880 > [ 62.512633] RBP: ffffcd5405421880 R08: 000000000000007d R09: ffffffffffffffff > [ 62.512634] R10: ffffffff9d63c084 R11: 00000000ffffffff R12: ffff8c373ffaeb80 > [ 62.512635] R13: ffff8c36ffdf65f8 R14: ffff8c373ffaeb80 R15: 0000000000040000 > [ 62.512637] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8c36ffdc0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > [ 62.512638] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > [ 62.512639] CR2: 000055c8e2fe8610 CR3: 0000000c13e10000 CR4: 00000000000006e0 > [ 62.512641] Call Trace: > [ 62.512646] __vmalloc_node_range+0x11c/0x2d0 > [ 62.512649] ? full_fit_alloc_test+0x140/0x140 [test_vmalloc] > [ 62.512654] __vmalloc_node+0x4b/0x70 > [ 62.512656] ? fix_size_alloc_test+0x44/0x60 [test_vmalloc] > [ 62.512659] fix_size_alloc_test+0x44/0x60 [test_vmalloc] > [ 62.512662] test_func+0xe7/0x1f0 [test_vmalloc] > [ 62.512666] ? fix_align_alloc_test+0x50/0x50 [test_vmalloc] > [ 62.512668] kthread+0x11a/0x140 > [ 62.512671] ? set_kthread_struct+0x40/0x40 > [ 62.512672] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 > > > To address this issue invoke a bulk-allocator many times until all pages > are obtained, i.e. do batched page requests adding cond_resched() meanwhile > to reschedule. Batched value is hard-coded and is 100 pages per call. Yes, this makes perfect sense to me. I would just be more explicit that this is an artificially created problem likely not being a problem at the moment but why not to prepare for a future. > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) Acked-by: Michal Hocko Thanks! > --- > mm/vmalloc.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > index aaad569e8963..5297958ac7c5 100644 > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > @@ -2785,10 +2785,32 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid, > * to fails, fallback to a single page allocator that is > * more permissive. > */ > - if (!order) > - nr_allocated = alloc_pages_bulk_array_node( > - gfp, nid, nr_pages, pages); > - else > + if (!order) { > + while (nr_allocated < nr_pages) { > + int nr, nr_pages_request; > + > + /* > + * A maximum allowed request is hard-coded and is 100 > + * pages per call. That is done in order to prevent a > + * long preemption off scenario in the bulk-allocator > + * so the range is [1:100]. > + */ > + nr_pages_request = min(100, (int)(nr_pages - nr_allocated)); > + > + nr = alloc_pages_bulk_array_node(gfp, nid, > + nr_pages_request, pages + nr_allocated); > + > + nr_allocated += nr; > + cond_resched(); > + > + /* > + * If zero or pages were obtained partly, > + * fallback to a single page allocator. > + */ > + if (nr != nr_pages_request) > + break; > + } > + } else > /* > * Compound pages required for remap_vmalloc_page if > * high-order pages. > -- > 2.20.1 -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs