Message-ID: <5111C8EB.6090805@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:07:23 +0800
From:	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
CC:	Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	rientjes@...gle.com, liuj97@...il.com, len.brown@...el.com,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org, cl@...ux.com,
	minchan.kim@...il.com, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, wujianguo@...wei.com,
	hpa@...or.com, linfeng@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	mgorman@...e.de, yinghai@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, cmetcalf@...era.com,
	sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/14] memory-hotplug: try to offline the memory twice
 to avoid dependence

Hi Glauber, all,

An old thing I want to discuss with you. :)

On 01/09/2013 11:09 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>> memory can't be offlined when CONFIG_MEMCG is selected.
>>>> For example: there is a memory device on node 1. The address range
>>>> is [1G, 1.5G). You will find 4 new directories memory8, memory9, memory10,
>>>> and memory11 under the directory /sys/devices/system/memory/.
>>>>
>>>> If CONFIG_MEMCG is selected, we will allocate memory to store page cgroup
>>>> when we online pages. When we online memory8, the memory stored page cgroup
>>>> is not provided by this memory device. But when we online memory9, the memory
>>>> stored page cgroup may be provided by memory8. So we can't offline memory8
>>>> now. We should offline the memory in the reversed order.
>>>>
>>>> When the memory device is hotremoved, we will auto offline memory provided
>>>> by this memory device. But we don't know which memory is onlined first, so
>>>> offlining memory may fail. In such case, iterate twice to offline the memory.
>>>> 1st iterate: offline every non primary memory block.
>>>> 2nd iterate: offline primary (i.e. first added) memory block.
>>>>
>>>> This idea is suggested by KOSAKI Motohiro.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang<wency@...fujitsu.com>
>>>
>>> Maybe there is something here that I am missing - I admit that I came
>>> late to this one, but this really sounds like a very ugly hack, that
>>> really has no place in here.
>>>
>>> Retrying, of course, may make sense, if we have reasonable belief that
>>> we may now succeed. If this is the case, you need to document - in the
>>> code - while is that.
>>>
>>> The memcg argument, however, doesn't really cut it. Why can't we make
>>> all page_cgroup allocations local to the node they are describing? If
>>> memcg is the culprit here, we should fix it, and not retry. If there is
>>> still any benefit in retrying, then we retry being very specific about why.
>>
>> We try to make all page_cgroup allocations local to the node they are describing
>> now. If the memory is the first memory onlined in this node, we will allocate
>> it from the other node.
>>
>> For example, node1 has 4 memory blocks: 8-11, and we online it from 8 to 11
>> 1. memory block 8, page_cgroup allocations are in the other nodes
>> 2. memory block 9, page_cgroup allocations are in memory block 8
>>
>> So we should offline memory block 9 first. But we don't know in which order
>> the user online the memory block.
>>
>> I think we can modify memcg like this:
>> allocate the memory from the memory block they are describing
>>
>> I am not sure it is OK to do so.
>
> I don't see a reason why not.
>
> You would have to tweak a bit the lookup function for page_cgroup, but
> assuming you will always have the pfns and limits, it should be easy to do.
>
> I think the only tricky part is that today we have a single
> node_page_cgroup, and we would of course have to have one per memory
> block. My assumption is that the number of memory blocks is limited and
> likely not very big. So even a static array would do.
>

About the idea "allocate the memory from the memory block they are 
describing",

online_pages()
  |-->memory_notify(MEM_GOING_ONLINE, &arg) ----------- memory of this 
section is not in buddy yet.
       |-->page_cgroup_callback()
            |-->online_page_cgroup()
                 |-->init_section_page_cgroup()
                      |-->alloc_page_cgroup() --------- allocate 
page_cgroup from buddy system.

When onlining pages, we allocate page_cgroup from buddy. And the being 
onlined pages are not in
buddy yet. I think we can reserve some memory in the section for 
page_cgroup, and return all the
rest to the buddy.

But when the system is booting,

start_kernel()
  |-->setup_arch()
  |-->mm_init()
  |    |-->mem_init()
  |         |-->numa_free_all_bootmem() -------------- all the pages are 
in buddy system.
  |-->page_cgroup_init()
       |-->init_section_page_cgroup()
            |-->alloc_page_cgroup() ------------------ I don't know how 
to reserve memory in each section.

So any idea about how to deal with it when the system is booting please?


And one more question, a memory section is 128MB in Linux. If we reserve 
part of the them for page_cgroup,
then anyone who wants to allocate a contiguous memory larger than 128MB, 
it will fail, right ?
Is it OK ?

Thanks. :)




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists