lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc,cma: conditionally prefer cma pageblocks for movable allocations
    2020년 3월 13일 (금) 오전 2:07, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>님이 작성:
    >
    > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 05:56:34PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
    > > 2020년 3월 12일 (목) 오전 11:40, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>님이 작성:
    > > >
    > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:41:28AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
    > > > > Hello, Roman.
    > > >
    > > > Hello, Joonsoo!
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > 2020년 3월 12일 (목) 오전 2:35, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>님이 작성:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 09:51:07AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
    > > > > > > On 3/6/20 9:01 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > > > > > > > Posting this one for Roman so I can deal with any upstream feedback and
    > > > > > > > create a v2 if needed, while scratching my head over the next piece of
    > > > > > > > this puzzle :)
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > ---8<---
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Currently a cma area is barely used by the page allocator because
    > > > > > > > it's used only as a fallback from movable, however kswapd tries
    > > > > > > > hard to make sure that the fallback path isn't used.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Few years ago Joonsoo wanted to fix these kinds of weird MIGRATE_CMA corner
    > > > > > > cases by using ZONE_MOVABLE instead [1]. Unfortunately it was reverted due to
    > > > > > > unresolved bugs. Perhaps the idea could be resurrected now?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Hi Vlastimil!
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Thank you for this reminder! I actually looked at it and also asked Joonsoo in private
    > > > > > about the state of this patch(set). As I understand, Joonsoo plans to resubmit
    > > > > > it later this year.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > What Rik and I are suggesting seems to be much simpler, however it's perfectly
    > > > > > possible that Joonsoo's solution is preferable long-term.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > So if the proposed patch looks ok for now, I'd suggest to go with it and return
    > > > > > to this question once we'll have a new version of ZONE_MOVABLE solution.
    > > > >
    > > > > Hmm... utilization is not the only matter for CMA user. The more
    > > > > important one is
    > > > > success guarantee of cma_alloc() and this patch would have a bad impact on it.
    > > > >
    > > > > A few years ago, I have tested this kind of approach and found that increasing
    > > > > utilization increases cma_alloc() failure. Reason is that the page
    > > > > allocated with
    > > > > __GFP_MOVABLE, especially, by sb_bread(), is sometimes pinned by someone.
    > > > >
    > > > > Until now, cma memory isn't used much so this problem doesn't occur easily.
    > > > > However, with this patch, it would happen.
    > > >
    > > > Sure, but the whole point of cma is to be able to use the cma area
    > > > effectively by movable pages. Otherwise we can just reserve it and
    > > > have 100% reliability.
    > >
    > > I agree with that cma area should be used effectively. However, cma_alloc()
    > > failure is functional failure in embedded system so we need to approach
    > > this problem more carefully. At least, to control the behaviour, configurable
    > > option (default is current behaviour) would be necessary.
    >
    > Do we know who can test it? Adding a configuration option is a last resort
    > measure, I really hope we can avoid it.

    I don't know. Agreed that configuration option is a last resort.

    > >
    > > > So I'd focus on fixing page migration issues, rather than trying
    > > > to keep it empty most of the time.
    > >
    > > Great! Fixing page migration issue is always good thing!
    > >
    > > > Btw, I've fixed two issues, which dramatically increased the success
    > > > rate of 1 GB page allocation in my case:
    > > >
    > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11420997/
    > > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1202868/
    > > >
    > > > (They both are on the way to upstream, but not there yet)
    > > >
    > > > Can you, please, pull them and try?
    > >
    > > Unfortunately, I lose my test setup for this problem so cannot try it now.
    > > I will try it as soon as possible.
    >
    > Thanks! Looking forward to it...
    >
    > >
    > > Anyway, AFAIR, I saw the problem while journal is continually working
    > > on ext4. Have you checked this case?
    >
    > My ext4 fix sounds very similar to what you're describing, but it's hard to
    > say for sure.

    Okay, I will test it.

    Thanks.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-03-13 08:45    [W:4.794 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site