From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: dalias@libc.org, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
"linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
pasha.tatashin@oracle.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
fenghua.yu@intel.com, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] mm: Asynchronous + multithreaded memmap init for ZONE_DEVICE
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 10:32:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAA9_cmez_vrjBYvcpXT_5ziQ2CqRFzPbEWMO2kdmjW0rWhkaCA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180717155006.GL7193@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:50 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue 17-07-18 10:46:39, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > > > Hi Dan,
> > > >
> > > > I am worried that this work adds another way to multi-thread struct
> > > > page initialization without re-use of already existing method. The
> > > > code is already a mess, and leads to bugs [1] because of the number of
> > > > different memory layouts, architecture specific quirks, and different
> > > > struct page initialization methods.
> > >
> > > Yes, the lamentations about the complexity of the memory hotplug code
> > > are known. I didn't think this set made it irretrievably worse, but
> > > I'm biased and otherwise certainly want to build consensus with other
> > > mem-hotplug folks.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So, when DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT is used we initialize struct pages
> > > > on demand until page_alloc_init_late() is called, and at that time we
> > > > initialize all the rest of struct pages by calling:
> > > >
> > > > page_alloc_init_late()
> > > > deferred_init_memmap() (a thread per node)
> > > > deferred_init_pages()
> > > > __init_single_page()
> > > >
> > > > This is because memmap_init_zone() is not multi-threaded. However,
> > > > this work makes memmap_init_zone() multi-threaded. So, I think we
> > > > should really be either be using deferred_init_memmap() here, or teach
> > > > DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT to use new multi-threaded memmap_init_zone()
> > > > but not both.
> > >
> > > I agree it would be good to look at unifying the 2 async
> > > initialization approaches, however they have distinct constraints. All
> > > of the ZONE_DEVICE memmap initialization work happens as a hotplug
> > > event where the deferred_init_memmap() threads have already been torn
> > > down. For the memory capacities where it takes minutes to initialize
> > > the memmap it is painful to incur a global flush of all initialization
> > > work. So, I think that a move to rework deferred_init_memmap() in
> > > terms of memmap_init_async() is warranted because memmap_init_async()
> > > avoids a global sync and supports the hotplug case.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the work to unite these 2 mechanisms is going to be
> > > 4.20 material, at least for me, since I'm taking an extended leave,
> > > and there is little time for me to get this in shape for 4.19. I
> > > wouldn't be opposed to someone judiciously stealing from this set and
> > > taking a shot at the integration, I likely will not get back to this
> > > until September.
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I do not want to hold your work, so if Michal or Andrew are OK with
> > the general approach of teaching memmap_init_zone() to be async
> > without re-using deferred_init_memmap() or without changing
> > deferred_init_memmap() to use the new memmap_init_async() I will
> > review your patches.
>
> Well, I would rather have a sane code base than rush anything in. I do
> agree with Pavel that we the number of async methods we have right now
> is really disturbing. Applying yet another one will put additional
> maintenance burden on whoever comes next.
I thought we only had the one async implementation presently, this
makes it sound like we have more than one? Did I miss the other(s)?
> Is there any reason that this work has to target the next merge window?
> The changelog is not really specific about that.
Same reason as any other change in this space, hardware availability
continues to increase. These patches are a direct response to end user
reports of unacceptable init latency with current kernels.
> There no numbers or
> anything that would make this sound as a high priority stuff.
>From the end of the cover letter:
"With this change an 8 socket system was observed to initialize pmem
namespaces in ~4 seconds whereas it was previously taking ~4 minutes."
My plan if this is merged would be to come back and refactor it with
the deferred_init_memmap() implementation, my plan if this is not
merged would be to come back and refactor it with the
deferred_init_memmap() implementation.
In practical terms, 0day has noticed a couple minor build fixes are needed:
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all/2018-July/050229.html
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all/2018-July/050231.html
...and I'm going to be offline until September. I thought it best to
post this before I go, and I'm open to someone else picking up this
work to get in shape for merging per community feedback.
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-17 17:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-16 17:00 [PATCH v2 00/14] mm: Asynchronous + multithreaded memmap init for ZONE_DEVICE Dan Williams
2018-07-16 17:00 ` [PATCH v2 01/14] mm: Plumb dev_pagemap instead of vmem_altmap to memmap_init_zone() Dan Williams
2018-07-16 17:00 ` [PATCH v2 02/14] mm: Enable asynchronous __add_pages() and vmemmap_populate_hugepages() Dan Williams
2018-07-16 17:00 ` [PATCH v2 03/14] mm: Teach memmap_init_zone() to initialize ZONE_DEVICE pages Dan Williams
2018-07-16 17:00 ` [PATCH v2 04/14] mm: Multithread ZONE_DEVICE initialization Dan Williams
2018-07-16 17:00 ` [PATCH v2 05/14] mm, memremap: Up-level foreach_order_pgoff() Dan Williams
2018-07-16 21:00 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-07-16 17:00 ` [PATCH v2 06/14] mm: Allow an external agent to coordinate memmap initialization Dan Williams
2018-07-16 17:00 ` [PATCH v2 07/14] libnvdimm, pmem: Allow a NULL-pfn to ->direct_access() Dan Williams
2018-07-16 17:01 ` [PATCH v2 08/14] tools/testing/nvdimm: " Dan Williams
2018-07-16 17:01 ` [PATCH v2 09/14] s390, dcssblk: " Dan Williams
2018-07-16 17:01 ` [PATCH v2 10/14] filesystem-dax: Do not request a pfn when not required Dan Williams
2018-07-16 17:01 ` [PATCH v2 11/14] filesystem-dax: Make mount time pfn validation a debug check Dan Williams
2018-07-16 17:01 ` [PATCH v2 12/14] libnvdimm, pmem: Initialize the memmap in the background Dan Williams
2018-07-16 17:01 ` [PATCH v2 13/14] device-dax: " Dan Williams
2018-07-16 17:01 ` [PATCH v2 14/14] libnvdimm, namespace: Publish page structure init state / control Dan Williams
2018-07-16 19:12 ` [PATCH v2 00/14] mm: Asynchronous + multithreaded memmap init for ZONE_DEVICE Pavel Tatashin
2018-07-16 20:30 ` Dan Williams
2018-07-17 14:46 ` Pavel Tatashin
2018-07-17 15:50 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-17 17:32 ` Dan Williams [this message]
2018-07-18 12:05 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-19 18:41 ` Dave Hansen
2018-07-23 11:09 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-23 16:15 ` Dave Hansen
2018-07-24 7:29 ` Michal Hocko
2018-09-10 19:06 ` Dan Williams
2018-09-10 19:47 ` Alexander Duyck
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=CAA9_cmez_vrjBYvcpXT_5ziQ2CqRFzPbEWMO2kdmjW0rWhkaCA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@oracle.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=ysato@users.sourceforge.jp \
/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).