lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA
On Tue 31-03-20 22:03:32, Baoquan He wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On 03/31/20 at 10:55am, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 31-03-20 11:14:23, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > Maybe I mis-read the code, but I don't see how this could happen. In the
> > > HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP=y case, free_area_init_node() calls
> > > calculate_node_totalpages() that ensures that node->node_zones are entirely
> > > within the node because this is checked in zone_spanned_pages_in_node().
> >
> > zone_spanned_pages_in_node does chech the zone boundaries are within the
> > node boundaries. But that doesn't really tell anything about other
> > potential zones interleaving with the physical memory range.
> > zone->spanned_pages simply gives the physical range for the zone
> > including holes. Interleaving nodes are essentially a hole
> > (__absent_pages_in_range is going to skip those).
> >
> > That means that when free_area_init_core simply goes over the whole
> > physical zone range including holes and that is why we need to check
> > both for physical and logical holes (aka other nodes).
> >
> > The life would be so much easier if the whole thing would simply iterate
> > over memblocks...
>
> The memblock iterating sounds a great idea. I tried with putting the
> memblock iterating in the upper layer, memmap_init(), which is used for
> boot mem only anyway. Do you think it's doable and OK? It yes, I can
> work out a formal patch to make this simpler as you said. The draft code
> is as below. Like this it uses the existing code and involves little change.

Doing this would be a step in the right direction! I haven't checked the
code very closely though. The below sounds way too simple to be truth I
am afraid. First for_each_mem_pfn_range is available only for
CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (which is one of the reasons why I keep
saying that I really hate that being conditional). Also I haven't really
checked the deferred initialization path - I have a very vague
recollection that it has been converted to the memblock api but I have
happilly dropped all that memory.

> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 138a56c0f48f..558d421f294b 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -6007,14 +6007,6 @@ void __meminit memmap_init_zone(unsigned long size, int nid, unsigned long zone,
> * function. They do not exist on hotplugged memory.
> */
> if (context == MEMMAP_EARLY) {
> - if (!early_pfn_valid(pfn)) {
> - pfn = next_pfn(pfn);
> - continue;
> - }
> - if (!early_pfn_in_nid(pfn, nid)) {
> - pfn++;
> - continue;
> - }
> if (overlap_memmap_init(zone, &pfn))
> continue;
> if (defer_init(nid, pfn, end_pfn))
> @@ -6130,9 +6122,17 @@ static void __meminit zone_init_free_lists(struct zone *zone)
> }
>
> void __meminit __weak memmap_init(unsigned long size, int nid,
> - unsigned long zone, unsigned long start_pfn)
> + unsigned long zone, unsigned long range_start_pfn)
> {
> - memmap_init_zone(size, nid, zone, start_pfn, MEMMAP_EARLY, NULL);
> + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
> + unsigned long range_end_pfn = range_start_pfn + size;
> + int i;
> + for_each_mem_pfn_range(i, nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn, NULL) {
> + start_pfn = clamp(start_pfn, range_start_pfn, range_end_pfn);
> + end_pfn = clamp(end_pfn, range_start_pfn, range_end_pfn);
> + if (end_pfn > start_pfn)
> + memmap_init_zone(size, nid, zone, start_pfn, MEMMAP_EARLY, NULL);
> + }
> }
>
> static int zone_batchsize(struct zone *zone)

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-31 16:22    [W:0.088 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site