Message-ID: <20180608074108.GD16231@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date:   Fri, 8 Jun 2018 15:41:08 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        pagupta@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [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.
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists