[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fef3e1a0-4a3a-70a2-233d-cd4bda3c8fab@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:24:06 +1000
From: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, shan.gavin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] mm/page_reporting: Allow driver to specify
reporting order
On 6/25/21 2:00 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
> On 6/25/21 11:19 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 4:46 PM Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The page reporting order (threshold) is sticky to @pageblock_order
>>> by default. The page reporting can never be triggered because the
>>> freeing page can't come up with a free area like that huge. The
>>> situation becomes worse when the system memory becomes heavily
>>> fragmented.
>>>
>>> For example, the following configurations are used on ARM64 when 64KB
>>> base page size is enabled. In this specific case, the page reporting
>>> won't be triggered until the freeing page comes up with a 512MB free
>>> area. That's hard to be met, especially when the system memory becomes
>>> heavily fragmented.
>>>
>>> PAGE_SIZE: 64KB
>>> HPAGE_SIZE: 512MB
>>> pageblock_order: 13 (512MB)
>>> MAX_ORDER: 14
>>>
>>> This allows the drivers to specify the page reporting order when the
>>> page reporting device is registered. It falls back to @pageblock_order
>>> if it's not specified by the driver. The existing users (hv_balloon
>>> and virtio_balloon) don't specify it and @pageblock_order is still
>>> taken as their page reporting order. So this shouldn't introduce any
>>> functional changes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/page_reporting.h | 3 +++
>>> mm/page_reporting.c | 6 ++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/page_reporting.h b/include/linux/page_reporting.h
>>> index 3b99e0ec24f2..fe648dfa3a7c 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/page_reporting.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/page_reporting.h
>>> @@ -18,6 +18,9 @@ struct page_reporting_dev_info {
>>>
>>> /* Current state of page reporting */
>>> atomic_t state;
>>> +
>>> + /* Minimal order of page reporting */
>>> + unsigned int order;
>>> };
>>>
>>> /* Tear-down and bring-up for page reporting devices */
>>> diff --git a/mm/page_reporting.c b/mm/page_reporting.c
>>> index 34bf4d26c2c4..382958eef8a9 100644
>>> --- a/mm/page_reporting.c
>>> +++ b/mm/page_reporting.c
>>> @@ -329,6 +329,12 @@ int page_reporting_register(struct page_reporting_dev_info *prdev)
>>> goto err_out;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * Update the page reporting order if it's specified by driver.
>>> + * Otherwise, it falls back to @pageblock_order.
>>> + */
>>> + page_reporting_order = prdev->order ? : pageblock_order;
>>> +
>>
>> An alternative to this would be to look at setting up some
>> comparisons. I might add another variable and do something like:
>> order = prdev->order ? : pageblock_order;
>> if (order < page_reporting_order)
>> page_reporting_order = order;
>>
>> You could essentially do something similar in the previous patch but
>> just use pageblock_order directly rather than having to add a local
>> variable.
>>
>> That way if you need to still pull down the page reporting order you
>> can do so without prdev->order or pageblock_order overwriting the
>> value and pushing it back up.
>>
>
> Thanks, Alex. Lets do both in v5, which will be posted shortly.
>
Alex, I just posted v5 to have the checks you suggested. Could
you help to have a quick scan. It's pointless to let Andrew
drop the patches and apply the last one again :)
Thanks,
Gavin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists