Date:   Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:08:48 +0000
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: alloc_pages_bulk()

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 12:42:46PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:42:56 +0000
> Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 05:10:38PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:00:56 +0000
> > > Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:26:28PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:  
> > > [...]  
> > > >   
> > > > > I also suggest the API can return less pages than requested. Because I
> > > > > want to to "exit"/return if it need to go into an expensive code path
> > > > > (like buddy allocator or compaction).  I'm assuming we have a flags to
> > > > > give us this behavior (via gfp_flags or alloc_flags)?
> > > > >     
> > > > 
> > > > The API returns the number of pages returned on a list so policies
> > > > around how aggressive it should be allocating the requested number of
> > > > pages could be adjusted without changing the API. Passing in policy
> > > > requests via gfp_flags may be problematic as most (all?) bits are
> > > > already used.  
> > > 
> > > Well, I was just thinking that I would use GFP_ATOMIC instead of
> > > GFP_KERNEL to "communicate" that I don't want this call to take too
> > > long (like sleeping).  I'm not requesting any fancy policy :-)
> > >   
> > 
> > The NFS use case requires opposite semantics
> > -- it really needs those allocations to succeed
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/161340498400.7780.962495219428962117.stgit@klimt.1015granger.net.
> 
> Sorry, but that is not how I understand the code.
> 
> The code is doing exactly what I'm requesting. If the alloc_pages_bulk()
> doesn't return expected number of pages, then check if others need to
> run.  The old code did schedule_timeout(msecs_to_jiffies(500)), while
> Chuck's patch change this to ask for cond_resched().  Thus, it tries to
> avoid blocking the CPU for too long (when allocating many pages).
> 
> And the nfsd code seems to handle that the code can be interrupted (via
> return -EINTR) via signal_pending(current).  Thus, the nfsd code seems
> to be able to handle if the page allocations failed.
> 

I'm waiting to find out exactly what NFSD is currently doing as the code
in 5.11 is not the same as what Chuck was coding against so I'm not 100%
certain how it currently works.

> 
> > I've asked what code it's based on as it's not 5.11 and I'll iron that
> > out first.
> >
> > Then it might be clearer what the "can fail" semantics should look like.
> > I think it would be best to have pairs of patches where the first patch
> > adjusts the semantics of the bulk allocator and the second adds a user.
> > That will limit the amount of code code carried in the implementation.
> > When the initial users are in place then the implementation can be
> > optimised as the optimisations will require significant refactoring and
> > I not want to refactor multiple times.
> 
> I guess, I should try to code-up the usage in page_pool.
> 
> What is the latest patch for adding alloc_pages_bulk() ?
> 

There isn't a usable latest version until I reconcile the nfsd caller.
The only major change in the API right now is dropping order. It handles
order-0 only.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists