lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 4/4] mm/sparse: Optimize memmap allocation during sparse_init()
On 06/08/18 at 03:28pm, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 06/07/18 at 03:46pm, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > @@ -297,8 +298,8 @@ void __init sparse_mem_maps_populate_node(struct page **map_map,
> > > if (!present_section_nr(pnum))
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > - map_map[pnum] = sparse_mem_map_populate(pnum, nodeid, NULL);
> > > - if (map_map[pnum])
> > > + map_map[nr_consumed_maps] = sparse_mem_map_populate(pnum, nodeid, NULL);
> > > + if (map_map[nr_consumed_maps++])
> > > continue;
> > ...
> >
> > This looks wonky.
> >
> > This seems to say that even if we fail to sparse_mem_map_populate() (it
> > returns NULL), we still consume a map. Is that right?
>
> Yes, the usemap_map[] and map_map[] allocated in sparse_init() are two
> temporary pointer array. Here if sparse_mem_map_populate() succeed, it
> will return the starting address of the page struct in this section, and
> map_map[i] stores the address for later use. If failed, map_map[i] =
> NULL, we will check this value in sparse_init() and decide this section
> is invalid, then clear it with 'ms->section_mem_map = 0;'.
>
> This is done on purpose.
>
> >
> > > /* fallback */
> > > + nr_consumed_maps = 0;
> > > for (pnum = pnum_begin; pnum < pnum_end; pnum++) {
> > > struct mem_section *ms;
> > >
> > > if (!present_section_nr(pnum))
> > > continue;
> > > - map_map[pnum] = sparse_mem_map_populate(pnum, nodeid, NULL);
> > > - if (map_map[pnum])
> > > + map_map[nr_consumed_maps] = sparse_mem_map_populate(pnum, nodeid, NULL);
> > > + if (map_map[nr_consumed_maps++])
> > > continue;
> >
> > Same questionable pattern as above...
>
> Ditto
>
> >
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_ALLOC_MEM_MAP_TOGETHER
> > > - size2 = sizeof(struct page *) * NR_MEM_SECTIONS;
> > > + size2 = sizeof(struct page *) * nr_present_sections;
> > > map_map = memblock_virt_alloc(size2, 0);
> > > if (!map_map)
> > > panic("can not allocate map_map\n");
> > > @@ -586,27 +594,44 @@ void __init sparse_init(void)
> > > sizeof(map_map[0]));
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > + /* The numner of present sections stored in nr_present_sections
> >
> > "number"?
>
> Yes, will change. Thanks.
>
> >
> > Also, this is not correct comment CodingStyle.
>
> Agree, will update.
>
> >
> > > + * are kept the same since mem sections are marked as present in
> > > + * memory_present().
> >
> > Are you just trying to say that we are not making sections present here?
>
> Yes, 'present' has different meaning in different stage. For
> struct mem_section **mem_section, we allocate array to prepare to store
> pointer pointing at each mem_section in system.
>
> 1) in sparse_memory_present_with_active_regions(), we will walk over all
> memory regions in memblock and mark those memory sections as 'present'
> if it's not hole. Note that we say it's present because it exists in
> memblock.
>
> 2) in sparse_init(), we will allocate usemap and memmap for each memory
> sections, for better memory management, we will try to allocate memory
> from that node at one time when handle that node's memory sections. Here
> if any failure happened on a certain memory section, e.g
> sparse_mem_map_populate() failed case you mentioned, we will clear it by
> "ms->section_mem_map = 0", to make it not present. Because if we still

Here, I mean in the last for_each_present_section_nr() loop in
sparse_init() to clear it by "ms->section_mem_map = 0". But not during
alloc_usemap_and_memmap() calling. In this stage, it's present, meaning
it owns memory regions in memblock, and its usemap and memmap have been
allocated and installed correctly.

> think it's present, and continue useing it, apparently mm system will
> corrupt.
>
> >
> > > In this for loop, we need check which sections
> > > + * failed to allocate memmap or usemap, then clear its
> > > + * ->section_mem_map accordingly. During this process, we need
> > > + * increase 'alloc_usemap_and_memmap' whether its allocation of
> > > + * memmap or usemap failed or not, so that after we handle the i-th
> > > + * memory section, can get memmap and usemap of (i+1)-th section
> > > + * correctly. */
> >
> > I'm really scratching my head over this comment. For instance "increase
> > 'alloc_usemap_and_memmap'" doesn't make any sense to me. How do you
> > increase a function?
>
> My bad, Dave, it should be 'nr_consumed_maps', which is the index of
> present section marked in the 1) stage at above. I must do it with wrong
> copy&paste.
>
> Let me say it with a concret example, e.g in one system, there are 10
> memory sections, and 5 on each node. Then its usemap_map[0..9] and
> map_map[0..9] need indexed with nr_consumed_maps from 0 to 9. Given one
> map allocation failed, say the 5-th section, in
> alloc_usemap_and_memmap(), we don't clear its ms->section_mem_map, means
> it's still present, just its usemap_map[5] or map_map[5] is NULL, then
> continue handling 6-th section. Until the last for_each_present_section_nr()
> loop in sparse_init(), we iterate all 10 memory sections, and found
> 5-th section's map is not OK, then it has to be taken off from mm
> system, otherwise corruption will happen if access 5-th section's
> memory.
>
> >
> > I wonder if you could give that comment another shot.
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-08 09:41    [W:0.038 / U:13.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site