[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231016071245.2865233-1-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:12:45 +0800
From: "zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>,
<steve.kang@...soc.com>
Subject: [PATCHv6 1/1] mm: optimization on page allocation when CMA enabled
From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
According to current CMA utilization policy, an alloc_pages(GFP_USER)
could 'steal' UNMOVABLE & RECLAIMABLE page blocks via the help of
CMA(pass zone_watermark_ok by counting CMA in but use U&R in rmqueue),
which could lead to following alloc_pages(GFP_KERNEL) fail.
Solving this by introducing second watermark checking for GFP_MOVABLE,
which could have the allocation use CMA when proper.
-- Free_pages(30MB)
|
|
-- WMARK_LOW(25MB)
|
-- Free_CMA(12MB)
|
|
--
Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
---
v6: update comments
---
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 452459836b71..5a146aa7c0aa 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -2078,6 +2078,43 @@ __rmqueue_fallback(struct zone *zone, int order, int start_migratetype,
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
+/*
+ * GFP_MOVABLE allocation could drain UNMOVABLE & RECLAIMABLE page blocks via
+ * the help of CMA which makes GFP_KERNEL failed. Checking if zone_watermark_ok
+ * again without ALLOC_CMA to see if to use CMA first.
+ */
+static bool use_cma_first(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order, unsigned int alloc_flags)
+{
+ unsigned long watermark;
+ bool cma_first = false;
+
+ watermark = wmark_pages(zone, alloc_flags & ALLOC_WMARK_MASK);
+ /* check if GFP_MOVABLE pass previous zone_watermark_ok via the help of CMA */
+ if (zone_watermark_ok(zone, order, watermark, 0, alloc_flags & (~ALLOC_CMA))) {
+ /*
+ * Balance movable allocations between regular and CMA areas by
+ * allocating from CMA when over half of the zone's free memory
+ * is in the CMA area.
+ */
+ cma_first = (zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES) >
+ zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES) / 2);
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * watermark failed means UNMOVABLE & RECLAIMBLE is not enough
+ * now, we should use cma first to keep them stay around the
+ * corresponding watermark
+ */
+ cma_first = true;
+ }
+ return cma_first;
+}
+#else
+static bool use_cma_first(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order, unsigned int alloc_flags)
+{
+ return false;
+}
+#endif
/*
* Do the hard work of removing an element from the buddy allocator.
* Call me with the zone->lock already held.
@@ -2091,12 +2128,11 @@ __rmqueue(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order, int migratetype,
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA)) {
/*
* Balance movable allocations between regular and CMA areas by
- * allocating from CMA when over half of the zone's free memory
- * is in the CMA area.
+ * allocating from CMA base on judging zone_watermark_ok again
+ * to see if the latest check got pass via the help of CMA
*/
if (alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA &&
- zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES) >
- zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES) / 2) {
+ use_cma_first(zone, order, alloc_flags)) {
page = __rmqueue_cma_fallback(zone, order);
if (page)
return page;
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists