lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: Make alloc_gigantic_page() available for general use
From
Date
On 16.10.19 10:51, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 16-10-19 10:08:21, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 16.10.19 09:34, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> [...]
>>> +static bool pfn_range_valid_contig(struct zone *z, unsigned long start_pfn,
>>> + unsigned long nr_pages)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long i, end_pfn = start_pfn + nr_pages;
>>> + struct page *page;
>>> +
>>> + for (i = start_pfn; i < end_pfn; i++) {
>>> + page = pfn_to_online_page(i);
>>> + if (!page)
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + if (page_zone(page) != z)
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + if (PageReserved(page))
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + if (page_count(page) > 0)
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + if (PageHuge(page))
>>> + return false;
>>> + }
>>
>> We might still try to allocate a lot of ranges that contain unmovable data
>> (we could avoid isolating a lot of page blocks in the first place). I'd love
>> to see something like pfn_range_movable() (similar, but different to
>> is_mem_section_removable(), which uses has_unmovable_pages()).
>
> Just to make sure I understand. Do you want has_unmovable_pages to be
> called inside pfn_range_valid_contig?

I think this requires more thought, as has_unmovable_pages() works on
pageblocks only AFAIK. If you try to allocate < MAX_ORDER - 1, you could
get a lot of false positives.

E.g., if a free "MAX_ORDER - 1" page spans two pageblocks and you only
test the second pageblock, you might detect "unmovable" if not taking
proper care of the "bigger" free page. (alloc_contig_range() properly
works around that issue)


> [...]
>>> +struct page *alloc_contig_pages(unsigned long nr_pages, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>>> + int nid, nodemask_t *nodemask)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long ret, pfn, flags;
>>> + struct zonelist *zonelist;
>>> + struct zone *zone;
>>> + struct zoneref *z;
>>> +
>>> + zonelist = node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask);
>>> + for_each_zone_zonelist_nodemask(zone, z, zonelist,
>>> + gfp_zone(gfp_mask), nodemask) {
>>
>> One important part is to never use the MOVABLE zone here (otherwise
>> unmovable data would end up on the movable zone). But I guess the caller is
>> responsible for that (not pass GFP_MOVABLE) like gigantic pages do.
>
> Well, if the caller uses GFP_MOVABLE then the movability should be
> implemented in some form. If that is not the case then it is a bug on
> the caller behalf.
>
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
>>> +
>>> + pfn = ALIGN(zone->zone_start_pfn, nr_pages);
>>
>> This alignment does not make too much sense when allowing passing in !power
>> of two orders. Maybe the caller should specify the requested alignment
>> instead? Or should we enforce this to be aligned to make our life easier for
>> now?
>
> Are there any usecases that would require than the page alignment?

Gigantic pages have to be aligned AFAIK.

--

Thanks,

David / dhildenb

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-16 10:57    [W:0.067 / U:2.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site