Re: [PATCH] mm: mempolicy: fix policy_nodemask() for MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY case

[Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 01:52:05PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 11:42:52AM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 05:26:23PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 05:06:14PM +0800, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 01-08-22 16:42:07, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > > > policy_nodemask() is supposed to be returned a nodemask representing a mempolicy
> > > > > for filtering nodes for page allocation, which is a hard restriction (see the user
> > > > > of allowed_mems_nr() in hugetlb.c).  However, MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY is a preferred
> > > > > mode not a hard restriction.  Now it breaks the user of HugeTLB.  Remove it from
> > > > > policy_nodemask() to fix it, which will not affect current users of policy_nodemask()
> > > > > since all of the users already have handled the case of MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY before
> > > > > calling it.  BTW, it is found by code inspection.
> > > > 
> > > > I am not sure this is the right fix. It is quite true that
> > > > policy_nodemask is a tricky function to use. It pretends to have a
> > > > higher level logic but all existing users are expected to be policy
> > > > aware and they special case allocation for each policy. That would mean
> > > > that hugetlb should do the same.
> > > 
> > > Yes, when I worked on the MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY patches, I was also
> > > confused about policy_nodemask(), as it is never a 'strict' one as
> > > the old code is:
> > > 
> > > 	if (unlikely(mode == MPOL_BIND) &&
> > > 		apply_policy_zone(policy, gfp_zone(gfp)) &&
> > > 		cpuset_nodemask_valid_mems_allowed(&policy->nodes))
> > > 		return &policy->nodes;
> > > 
> > > 	return NULL
> > > 
> > > Even when the MPOL_BIND's nodes is not allowed by cpuset, it will 
> > > still return NULL (equals all nodes).
> > >
> > 
> > Well, I agree policy_nodemask() is really confusing because of the
> > shortage of comments and the weird logic.
> > 
> > > From the semantics of allowed_mems_nr(), I think it does get changed
> > > a little by b27abaccf8e8. And to enforce the 'strict' semantic for
> > > 'allowed', we may need a more strict nodemask API for it.
> > >
> > 
> > Maybe this is a good idea to fix this, e.g. introducing a new helper
> > to return the strict allowed nodemask.
> 
> Yep. 
> 
> I had another thought to add one global all-zero nodemask, for API like
> policy_nodemask(), it has 2 types of return value:
> * a nodemask with some bits set
> * NULL (means all nodes)
> 
> Here a new type of zero nodemask (a gloabl variable)can be created to
> indicate no qualified node.
>

I know why you want to introduce a gloable zero nidemask. Since we already
have a glable nodemask array, namely node_states, instead of returning NULL
for the case of all nodes, how about returing node_states[N_ONLINE] for it?
And make it return NULL for the case where no nodes are allowed. Any thought?
 
> > > > I haven't checked the actual behavior implications for hugetlb here. Is
> > > > MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY even supported for hugetlb? Does this change make it
> > > > work? From a quick look this just ignores MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY
> > > > completely.
> > > 
> > > IIRC, the hugetlb will hornor MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY. And I can double
> > > check and report back if otherwise.
> > >
> > > > > Fixes: b27abaccf8e8 ("mm/mempolicy: add MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY for multiple preferred nodes")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  mm/mempolicy.c | 3 ---
> > > > >  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > > > > index 6c27acb6cd63..4deec7e598c6 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > > > > @@ -1845,9 +1845,6 @@ nodemask_t *policy_nodemask(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy)
> > > > >  		cpuset_nodemask_valid_mems_allowed(&policy->nodes))
> > > > >  		return &policy->nodes;
> > > > >  
> > > > > -	if (mode == MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY)
> > > > > -		return &policy->nodes;
> > > 
> > > I think it will make MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY not usable.
> > >
> > 
> > Sorry, I didn't got what you mean here. Could you explain more details
> > about why it is not usable?
>  
> I thought alloc_pages() will rely on policy_nodemask(), which was wrong
> as I forgot the MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY has a dedicated function
> alloc_pages_preferred_many() to handle it. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Feng
> 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Feng
> > > 
> > > > > -
> > > > >  	return NULL;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > 2.11.0
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Michal Hocko
> > > > SUSE Labs
> > > 
> > 
>