lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: cma: allocate cma areas bottom-up
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:36:23PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Hi Roman,
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:36:15AM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > Currently cma areas without a fixed base address are allocated
> > close to the end of the node. This placement is sub-optimal because
> > of how the compaction works: it effectively moves pages into
> > the cma area. In particular, it often brings in hot executable pages,
> > even if there is a plenty of free memory on the machine.
> > This results in more cma allocation failures.
> >
> > Instead let's place cma areas close to the beginning of a node.
> > Cma first tries to start with highmem_start, so we shouldn't mess
> > up with DMA32. In this case the compaction will help to free cma
> > areas, resulting in better cma allocation success rates.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/memblock.h | 5 +++--
> > mm/cma.c | 4 ++--
> > mm/memblock.c | 26 +++++++++++++++-----------
> > 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> > index 9c5cc95c7cee..698188066450 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> > @@ -384,8 +384,9 @@ static inline int memblock_get_region_node(const struct memblock_region *r)
> > phys_addr_t memblock_phys_alloc_range(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align,
> > phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end);
> > phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
> > - phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t start,
> > - phys_addr_t end, int nid, bool exact_nid);
> > + phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t start,
> > + phys_addr_t end, int nid, bool exact_nid,
> > + bool bottom_up);
> > phys_addr_t memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> >
> > static inline phys_addr_t memblock_phys_alloc(phys_addr_t size,
> > diff --git a/mm/cma.c b/mm/cma.c
> > index 20c4f6f40037..1b42be6d059b 100644
> > --- a/mm/cma.c
> > +++ b/mm/cma.c
> > @@ -332,13 +332,13 @@ int __init cma_declare_contiguous_nid(phys_addr_t base,
> > */
> > if (base < highmem_start && limit > highmem_start) {
> > addr = memblock_alloc_range_nid(size, alignment,
> > - highmem_start, limit, nid, true);
> > + highmem_start, limit, nid, true, true);
> > limit = highmem_start;
> > }
> >
> > if (!addr) {
> > addr = memblock_alloc_range_nid(size, alignment, base,
> > - limit, nid, true);
> > + limit, nid, true, true);
> > if (!addr) {
> > ret = -ENOMEM;
> > goto err;
> > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> > index b8b7be0561c4..c334b401fe16 100644
> > --- a/mm/memblock.c
> > +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> > @@ -272,6 +272,7 @@ __memblock_find_range_top_down(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
> > * %MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE
> > * @nid: nid of the free area to find, %NUMA_NO_NODE for any node
> > * @flags: pick from blocks based on memory attributes
> > + * @bottom_up: force bottom-up allocation
>
> Why wouldn't you use memblock_set_bottom_up() around the allocations in
> CMA, e.g.
>
> bool bottom_up = memblock_bottom_up();
>
> if (!bottom_up)
> memblock_set_bottom_up(true);
>
> /* allocate memory */
>
> memblock_set_bottom_up(bottom_up);

Hi Mike!

Wouldn't it open a possibility for a race? If somebody else is doing an allocation
in parallel, their allocation could become affected.

Thanks!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-12-15 22:48    [W:0.192 / U:1.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site