[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200310173056.GB85000@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 10:30:56 -0700
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<kernel-team@...com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: hugetlb: optionally allocate gigantic hugepages
using cma
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:01:21AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 09-03-20 17:25:24, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> [...]
> > 2) Run-time allocations of gigantic hugepages are performed using the
> > cma allocator and the dedicated cma area
>
> [...]
> > @@ -1237,6 +1246,23 @@ static struct page *alloc_gigantic_page(struct hstate *h, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > {
> > unsigned long nr_pages = 1UL << huge_page_order(h);
> >
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA) && hugetlb_cma[0]) {
> > + struct page *page;
> > + int nid;
> > +
> > + for_each_node_mask(nid, *nodemask) {
> > + if (!hugetlb_cma[nid])
> > + break;
> > +
> > + page = cma_alloc(hugetlb_cma[nid], nr_pages,
> > + huge_page_order(h), true);
> > + if (page)
> > + return page;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return NULL;
>
> Is there any strong reason why the alloaction annot fallback to non-CMA
> allocator when the cma is depleted?
The reason is that that gigantic pages allocated using cma require
a special handling on releasing. It's solvable by using an additional
page flag, but because the current code is usually not working except
a short time just after the system start, I don't think it's worth it.
But I do not have a strong opinion here.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists