[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3e2f1910-e7d9-ddf9-063b-d702793f1525@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2021 09:35:12 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 09/15] virtio: virtio_mem: use PAGES_PER_SECTION
instead of MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES
On 05.08.21 21:02, Zi Yan wrote:
> From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
>
> It keeps the existing behavior when MAX_ORDER grows beyond a section
> size.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
> Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> ---
> drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c | 12 ++++++------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c
> index 19036922f7ef..bab5a81fa796 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c
> @@ -1105,11 +1105,11 @@ static void virtio_mem_clear_fake_offline(unsigned long pfn,
> */
> static void virtio_mem_fake_online(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long nr_pages)
> {
> - const unsigned long max_nr_pages = MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES;
> + const unsigned long max_nr_pages = PAGES_PER_SECTION;
> unsigned long i;
>
> /*
> - * We are always called at least with MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES
> + * We are always called at least with PAGES_PER_SECTION
> * granularity/alignment (e.g., the way subblocks work). All pages
> * inside such a block are alike.
> */
> @@ -1125,7 +1125,7 @@ static void virtio_mem_fake_online(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long nr_pages)
> if (PageDirty(page)) {
> virtio_mem_clear_fake_offline(pfn + i, max_nr_pages,
> false);
> - generic_online_page(page, MAX_ORDER - 1);
> + generic_online_page(page, PAGES_PER_SECTION - 1);
> } else {
> virtio_mem_clear_fake_offline(pfn + i, max_nr_pages,
> true);
> @@ -1228,7 +1228,7 @@ static void virtio_mem_online_page_cb(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> if (vm->in_sbm) {
> /*
> * We exploit here that subblocks have at least
> - * MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES size/alignment - so we cannot
> + * PAGES_PER_SECTION size/alignment - so we cannot
> * cross subblocks within one call.
> */
> id = virtio_mem_phys_to_mb_id(addr);
> @@ -2438,14 +2438,14 @@ static int virtio_mem_init(struct virtio_mem *vm)
> VIRTIO_MEM_DEFAULT_OFFLINE_THRESHOLD);
>
> /*
> - * We want subblocks to span at least MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES and
> + * We want subblocks to span at least PAGES_PER_SECTION and
> * pageblock_nr_pages pages. This:
> * - Simplifies our page onlining code (virtio_mem_online_page_cb)
> * and fake page onlining code (virtio_mem_fake_online).
> * - Is required for now for alloc_contig_range() to work reliably -
> * it doesn't properly handle smaller granularity on ZONE_NORMAL.
> */
> - sb_size = max_t(uint64_t, MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES,
> + sb_size = max_t(uint64_t, PAGES_PER_SECTION,
> pageblock_nr_pages) * PAGE_SIZE;
> sb_size = max_t(uint64_t, vm->device_block_size, sb_size);
>
>
This is very much completely broken and destroys most of the purpose of
virtio-mem. It even is broken once MAX_ORDER would exceed a single
memory section I think.
Whatever you do, keep virtio-mem working *as is* unless someone
explicitly sets MAX_ORDER on the command line to something bigger.
virtio-mem will require some minor adjustments once MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES
would exceed the memory section size -- the functionality will, however,
be heavily degraded once you increase MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES in any way
(again, which is fine if it's explicitly done by an admin on the command
line).
As mentioned somewhere else already, we'll have to tackle
alloc_contig_range() to properly deal with pageblock_order granularity,
then we can rework virtio-mem code to be based on that instead of
MAX_ORDER - 1.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists