Message-ID: <CAMZfGtXXPpvnGotwgYj5G5DkWM1e+McLOLM3pTGuUui54f5TFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jan 2021 21:08:35 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, mingo@...hat.com,
        bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, paulmck@...nel.org,
        mchehab+huawei@...nel.org, pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, oneukum@...e.com,
        anshuman.khandual@....com, jroedel@...e.de,
        Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
        HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) 
        <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
        Xiongchun duan <duanxiongchun@...edance.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v13 05/12] mm: hugetlb: allocate the
 vmemmap pages associated with each HugeTLB page

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 8:37 PM Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 6:36 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 26.01.21 16:56, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 26.01.21 16:34, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:10:53PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > >>> The real issue seems to be discarding the vmemmap on any memory that has
> > >>> movability constraints - CMA and ZONE_MOVABLE; otherwise, as discussed, we
> > >>> can reuse parts of the thingy we're freeing for the vmemmap. Not that it
> > >>> would be ideal: that once-a-huge-page thing will never ever be a huge page
> > >>> again - but if it helps with OOM in corner cases, sure.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, that is one way, but I am not sure how hard would it be to implement.
> > >> Plus the fact that as you pointed out, once that memory is used for vmemmap
> > >> array, we cannot use it again.
> > >> Actually, we would fragment the memory eventually?
> > >>
> > >>> Possible simplification: don't perform the optimization for now with free
> > >>> huge pages residing on ZONE_MOVABLE or CMA. Certainly not perfect: what
> > >>> happens when migrating a huge page from ZONE_NORMAL to (ZONE_MOVABLE|CMA)?
> > >>
> > >> But if we do not allow theose pages to be in ZONE_MOVABLE or CMA, there is no
> > >> point in migrate them, right?
> > >
> > > Well, memory unplug "could" still work and migrate them and
> > > alloc_contig_range() "could in the future" still want to migrate them
> > > (virtio-mem, gigantic pages, powernv memtrace). Especially, the latter
> > > two don't work with ZONE_MOVABLE/CMA. But, I mean, it would be fair
> > > enough to say "there are no guarantees for
> > > alloc_contig_range()/offline_pages() with ZONE_NORMAL, so we can break
> > > these use cases when a magic switch is flipped and make these pages
> > > non-migratable anymore".
> > >
> > > I assume compaction doesn't care about huge pages either way, not sure
> > > about numa balancing etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > However, note that there is a fundamental issue with any approach that
> > > allocates a significant amount of unmovable memory for user-space
> > > purposes (excluding CMA allocations for unmovable stuff, CMA is
> > > special): pairing it with ZONE_MOVABLE becomes very tricky as your user
> > > space might just end up eating all kernel memory, although the system
> > > still looks like there is plenty of free memory residing in
> > > ZONE_MOVABLE. I mentioned that in the context of secretmem in a reduced
> > > form as well.
> > >
> > > We theoretically have that issue with dynamic allocation of gigantic
> > > pages, but it's something a user explicitly/rarely triggers and it can
> > > be documented to cause problems well enough. We'll have the same issue
> > > with GUP+ZONE_MOVABLE that Pavel is fixing right now - but GUP is
> > > already known to be broken in various ways and that it has to be treated
> > > in a special way. I'd like to limit the nasty corner cases.
> > >
> > > Of course, we could have smart rules like "don't online memory to
> > > ZONE_MOVABLE automatically when the magic switch is active". That's just
> > > ugly, but could work.
> > >
> >
> > Extending on that, I just discovered that only x86-64, ppc64, and arm64
> > really support hugepage migration.
> >
> > Maybe one approach with the "magic switch" really would be to disable
> > hugepage migration completely in hugepage_migration_supported(), and
> > consequently making hugepage_movable_supported() always return false.
> >
> > Huge pages would never get placed onto ZONE_MOVABLE/CMA and cannot be
> > migrated. The problem I describe would apply (careful with using
> > ZONE_MOVABLE), but well, it can at least be documented.
>
> Thanks for your explanation.
>
> All thinking seems to be introduced by encountering OOM. :-(
>
> In order to move forward and free the hugepage. We should add some
> restrictions below.
>
> 1. Only free the hugepage which is allocated from the ZONE_NORMAL.
           ^^
Sorry. Here "free" should be "optimize".

> 2. Disable hugepage migration when this feature is enabled.
> 3. Using GFP_ATOMIC to allocate vmemmap pages firstly (it can reduce
>    memory fragmentation), if it fails, we use part of the hugepage to
>    remap.
>
> Hi Oscar, Mike and David H
>
> What's your opinion about this? Should we take this approach?
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> >
> > David / dhildenb
> >

Powered by blists - more mailing lists