lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 05/11] mm/migrate: clear __GFP_RECLAIM for THP allocation for migration
    2020년 7월 7일 (화) 오후 9:17, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>님이 작성:
    >
    > On 7/7/20 9:44 AM, js1304@gmail.com wrote:
    > > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
    > >
    > > In mm/migrate.c, THP allocation for migration is called with the provided
    > > gfp_mask | GFP_TRANSHUGE. This gfp_mask contains __GFP_RECLAIM and it
    > > would be conflict with the intention of the GFP_TRANSHUGE.
    > >
    > > GFP_TRANSHUGE/GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT is introduced to control the reclaim
    > > behaviour by well defined manner since overhead of THP allocation is
    > > quite large and the whole system could suffer from it. So, they deals
    > > with __GFP_RECLAIM mask deliberately. If gfp_mask contains __GFP_RECLAIM
    > > and uses gfp_mask | GFP_TRANSHUGE(_LIGHT) for THP allocation, it means
    > > that it breaks the purpose of the GFP_TRANSHUGE(_LIGHT).
    > >
    > > This patch fixes this situation by clearing __GFP_RECLAIM in provided
    > > gfp_mask. Note that there are some other THP allocations for migration
    > > and they just uses GFP_TRANSHUGE(_LIGHT) directly. This patch would make
    > > all THP allocation for migration consistent.
    > >
    > > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
    > > ---
    > > mm/migrate.c | 5 +++++
    > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
    > >
    > > diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
    > > index 02b31fe..ecd7615 100644
    > > --- a/mm/migrate.c
    > > +++ b/mm/migrate.c
    > > @@ -1547,6 +1547,11 @@ struct page *new_page_nodemask(struct page *page,
    > > }
    > >
    > > if (PageTransHuge(page)) {
    > > + /*
    > > + * clear __GFP_RECALIM since GFP_TRANSHUGE is the gfp_mask
    > > + * that chooses the reclaim masks deliberately.
    > > + */
    > > + gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_RECLAIM;
    > > gfp_mask |= GFP_TRANSHUGE;
    >
    > In addition to what Michal said...
    >
    > The mask is not passed to this function, so I would just redefine it, as is done
    > in the hugetlb case. We probably don't even need the __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL for the
    > THP case asi it's just there to prevent OOM kill (per commit 0f55685627d6d ) and
    > the costly order of THP is enough for that.

    As I said in another reply, provided __GFP_THISNODE should be handled
    so just redefining it would not work.

    Thanks.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-07-09 09:17    [W:2.571 / U:0.620 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site