[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6319738-0d71-4083-a5db-845430b8a5d8@bytedance.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 10:53:08 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rppt@...nel.org, david@...hat.com,
vbabka@...e.cz, mhocko@...e.com, willy@...radead.org,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, mingo@...nel.org,
aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com, hannes@...xchg.org, osalvador@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm: memory_hotplug: drop memoryless node from
fallback lists
Hi Ying,
On 2023/10/23 09:18, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Ying,
>>
>> On 2023/10/20 15:05, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>> Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> In offline_pages(), if a node becomes memoryless, we
>>>> will clear its N_MEMORY state by calling node_states_clear_node().
>>>> But we do this after rebuilding the zonelists by calling
>>>> build_all_zonelists(), which will cause this memoryless node to
>>>> still be in the fallback list of other nodes.
>>> For fallback list, do you mean pgdat->node_zonelists[]? If so, in
>>> build_all_zonelists
>>> __build_all_zonelists
>>> build_zonelists
>>> build_zonelists_in_node_order
>>> build_zonerefs_node
>>> populated_zone() will be checked before adding zone into zonelist.
>>> So, IIUC, we will not try to allocate from the memory less node.
>>
>> Normally yes, but if it is the weird topology mentioned in [1], it's
>> possible to allocate memory from it, it is a memoryless node, but it
>> also has memory.
>>
>> In addition to the above case, I think it's reasonable to remove
>> memory less node from node_order[] in advance. In this way it will
>> not to be traversed in build_zonelists_in_node_order().
>>
>> [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230212110305.93670-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com/
>
> Got it! Thank you for information. I think that it may be good to
> include this in the patch description to avoid potential confusing in
> the future.
OK, maybe the commit message can be changed to the following:
```
In offline_pages(), if a node becomes memoryless, we
will clear its N_MEMORY state by calling node_states_clear_node().
But we do this after rebuilding the zonelists by calling
build_all_zonelists(), which will cause this memoryless node to
still be in the fallback nodes (node_order[]) of other nodes.
To drop memoryless nodes from fallback nodes in this case, just
call node_states_clear_node() before calling build_all_zonelists().
In this way, we will not try to allocate pages from memoryless
node0, then the panic mentioned in [1] will also be fixed. Even though
this problem has been solved by dropping the NODE_MIN_SIZE constrain
in x86 [2], it would be better to fix it in the core MM as well.
[1].
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230212110305.93670-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com/
[2]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231017062215.171670-1-rppt@kernel.org/
```
Thanks,
Qi
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
>
>> Thanks,
>> Qi
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Huang, Ying
>>>
>>>> This will incur
>>>> some runtime overhead.
>>>>
>>>> To drop memoryless node from fallback lists in this case, just
>>>> call node_states_clear_node() before calling build_all_zonelists().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
>>>> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>>> [snip]
>>> --
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists