Message-ID: <CA+2MQi9ZUeARGJpqqCK5nn1dquZL-n=cFZkDmd9AqNsg40gMOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Dec 2020 08:45:54 +0800
From:   Liang Li <liliang324@...il.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Liang Li <liliangleo@...iglobal.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] mm: support hugetlb free page reporting

> > > > +       spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (huge_page_order(h) > MAX_ORDER)
> > > > +               budget = HUGEPAGE_REPORTING_CAPACITY;
> > > > +       else
> > > > +               budget = HUGEPAGE_REPORTING_CAPACITY * 32;
> > >
> > > Wouldn't huge_page_order always be more than MAX_ORDER? Seems like we
> > > don't even really need budget since this should probably be pulling
> > > out no more than one hugepage at a time.
> >
> > I want to disting a 2M page and 1GB page here. The order of 1GB page is greater
> > than MAX_ORDER while 2M page's order is less than MAX_ORDER.
>
> The budget here is broken. When I put the budget in page reporting it
> was so that we wouldn't try to report all of the memory in a given
> region. It is meant to hold us to no more than one pass through 1/16
> of the free memory. So essentially we will be slowly processing all of
> memory and it will take 16 calls (32 seconds) for us to process a
> system that is sitting completely idle. It is meant to pace us so we
> don't spend a ton of time doing work that will be undone, not to
> prevent us from burying a CPU which is what seems to be implied here.
>
> Using HUGEPAGE_REPORTING_CAPACITY makes no sense here. I was using it
> in the original definition because it was how many pages we could
> scoop out at a time and then I was aiming for a 16th of that. Here you
> are arbitrarily squaring HUGEPAGE_REPORTING_CAPACITY in terms of the
> amount of work you will doo since you are using it as a multiple
> instead of a divisor.
>
> > >
> > > > +       /* loop through free list adding unreported pages to sg list */
> > > > +       list_for_each_entry_safe(page, next, list, lru) {
> > > > +               /* We are going to skip over the reported pages. */
> > > > +               if (PageReported(page)) {
> > > > +                       if (++scan_cnt >= MAX_SCAN_NUM) {
> > > > +                               ret = scan_cnt;
> > > > +                               break;
> > > > +                       }
> > > > +                       continue;
> > > > +               }
> > > > +
> > >
> > > It would probably have been better to place this set before your new
> > > set. I don't see your new set necessarily being the best use for page
> > > reporting.
> >
> > I haven't really latched on to what you mean, could you explain it again?
>
> It would be better for you to spend time understanding how this patch
> set works before you go about expanding it to do other things.
> Mistakes like the budget one above kind of point out the fact that you
> don't understand how this code was supposed to work and just kind of
> shoehorned you page zeroing code onto it.
>
> It would be better to look at trying to understand this code first
> before you extend it to support your zeroing use case. So adding huge
> pages first might make more sense than trying to zero and push the
> order down. The fact is the page reporting extension should be minimal
> for huge pages since they are just passed as a scatterlist so you
> should only need to add a small bit to page_reporting.c to extend it
> to support this use case.
>
> > >
> > > > +               /*
> > > > +                * If we fully consumed our budget then update our
> > > > +                * state to indicate that we are requesting additional
> > > > +                * processing and exit this list.
> > > > +                */
> > > > +               if (budget < 0) {
> > > > +                       atomic_set(&prdev->state, PAGE_REPORTING_REQUESTED);
> > > > +                       next = page;
> > > > +                       break;
> > > > +               }
> > > > +
> > >
> > > If budget is only ever going to be 1 then we probably could just look
> > > at making this the default case for any time we find a non-reported
> > > page.
> >
> > and here again.
>
> It comes down to the fact that the changes you made have a significant
> impact on how this is supposed to function. Reducing the scatterlist
> to a size of one makes the whole point of doing batching kind of
> pointless. Basically the code should be rewritten with the assumption
> that if you find a page you report it.
>
> The old code would batch things up because there is significant
> overhead to be addressed when going to the hypervisor to report said
> memory. Your code doesn't seem to really take anything like that into
> account and instead is using an arbitrary budget value based on the
> page size.
>
> > > > +               /* Attempt to pull page from list and place in scatterlist */
> > > > +               if (*offset) {
> > > > +                       isolate_free_huge_page(page, h, nid);
> > > > +                       /* Add page to scatter list */
> > > > +                       --(*offset);
> > > > +                       sg_set_page(&sgl[*offset], page, page_len, 0);
> > > > +
> > > > +                       continue;
> > > > +               }
> > > > +
> > >
> > > There is no point in the continue case if we only have a budget of 1.
> > > We should probably just tighten up the loop so that all it does is
> > > search until it finds the 1 page it can pull, pull it, and then return
> > > it. The scatterlist doesn't serve much purpose and could be reduced to
> > > just a single entry.
> >
> > I will think about it more.
> >
> > > > +static int
> > > > +hugepage_reporting_process_hstate(struct page_reporting_dev_info *prdev,
> > > > +                           struct scatterlist *sgl, struct hstate *h)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       unsigned int leftover, offset = HUGEPAGE_REPORTING_CAPACITY;
> > > > +       int ret = 0, nid;
> > > > +
> > > > +       for (nid = 0; nid < MAX_NUMNODES; nid++) {
> > > > +               ret = hugepage_reporting_cycle(prdev, h, nid, sgl, &offset);
> > > > +
> > > > +               if (ret < 0)
> > > > +                       return ret;
> > > > +       }
> > > > +
> > > > +       /* report the leftover pages before going idle */
> > > > +       leftover = HUGEPAGE_REPORTING_CAPACITY - offset;
> > > > +       if (leftover) {
> > > > +               sgl = &sgl[offset];
> > > > +               ret = prdev->report(prdev, sgl, leftover);
> > > > +
> > > > +               /* flush any remaining pages out from the last report */
> > > > +               spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
> > > > +               hugepage_reporting_drain(prdev, h, sgl, leftover, !ret);
> > > > +               spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
> > > > +       }
> > > > +
> > > > +       return ret;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > >
> > > If HUGEPAGE_REPORTING_CAPACITY is 1 it would make more sense to
> > > rewrite this code to just optimize for a find and process a page
> > > approach rather than trying to batch pages.
> >
> > Yes, I will make a change. Thanks for your comments!
>
> Lastly I would recommend setting up and testing page reporting with
> the virtio-balloon driver. I worry that your patch set would have a
> significant negative impact on the performance of it. As I mentioned
> before it was designed to be more of a leaky bucket solution to
> reporting memory and was supposed to take about 30 seconds for it to
> flush all of the memory in a guest. Your changes seem to be trying to
> do a much more aggressive task and I worry that what you are going to
> find is that it will easily push CPUs to 100% on an active system
> since it will be aggressively trying to zero memory as soon as it is
> freed rather than taking it at a slower pace.

Thanks for your explanation, I got what your meaning now. In this RFC
I just try to make it work, there is a lot of room for code refinement. I will
take advice and pay more attention to the points you mentioned.

Liang

Powered by blists - more mailing lists