lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/4] mm: failfast mode with __GFP_NORETRY in alloc_contig_range
    On Tue 26-01-21 11:10:18, Minchan Kim wrote:
    > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 08:44:49AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
    > > On Mon 25-01-21 11:33:36, Minchan Kim wrote:
    > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:12:00PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
    > > > > On Thu 21-01-21 09:55:00, Minchan Kim wrote:
    > > > > > Contiguous memory allocation can be stalled due to waiting
    > > > > > on page writeback and/or page lock which causes unpredictable
    > > > > > delay. It's a unavoidable cost for the requestor to get *big*
    > > > > > contiguous memory but it's expensive for *small* contiguous
    > > > > > memory(e.g., order-4) because caller could retry the request
    > > > > > in different range where would have easy migratable pages
    > > > > > without stalling.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > This patch introduce __GFP_NORETRY as compaction gfp_mask in
    > > > > > alloc_contig_range so it will fail fast without blocking
    > > > > > when it encounters pages needed waiting.
    > > > >
    > > > > I am not against controling how hard this allocator tries with gfp mask
    > > > > but this changelog is rather void on any data and any user.
    > > > >
    > > > > It is also rather dubious to have retries when then caller says to not
    > > > > retry.
    > > >
    > > > Since max_tries is 1 with ++tries, it shouldn't retry.
    > >
    > > OK, I have missed that. This is a tricky code. ASYNC mode should be
    > > completely orthogonal to the retries count. Those are different things.
    > > Page allocator does an explicit bail out based on __GFP_NORETRY. You
    > > should be doing the same.
    >
    > A concern with __GFP_NOWAIT is regardless of flags passed to cma_alloc,
    > internal implementation of alloc_contig_range inside will use blockable
    > operation. See __alloc_contig_migrate_range.

    Yes it is now. But nothing should prevent from making it non blockable.

    > If we go with __GFP_NOWAIT, we should propagate the gfp_mask inside of
    > __alloc_contig_migrate_range to make cma_alloc consistent with alloc_pages.

    Absolutely. You should be doing that anyway. As I've said above you
    shouldn't rely on side effects like ASYNC mode.

    > (IIUC, that's what you want - make gfp_mask consistent between cma_alloc
    > and alloc_pages) but I am worry about the direction will make complicate
    > situation since cma invovles migration context as well as target page
    > allocation context. Sometime, the single gfp flag could be trouble
    > to express both contexts all at once.

    I am not sure I see your concern.

    > > > > Also why didn't you consider GFP_NOWAIT semantic for non blocking mode?
    > > >
    > > > GFP_NOWAIT seems to be low(specific) flags rather than the one I want to
    > > > express. Even though I said only page writeback/lock in the description,
    > > > the goal is to avoid costly operations we might find later so such
    > > > "failfast", I thought GFP_NORETRY would be good fit.
    > >
    > > I suspect you are too focused on implementation details here. Think
    > > about the indended semantic. Callers of this functionality will not
    > > think about those (I hope because if they rely on these details then the
    > > whole thing will become unmaintainable because any change would require
    > > an audit of all existing users). All you should be caring about is to
    > > control how expensive the call can be. GFP_NOWAIT is not really low
    > > level from that POV. It gives you a very lightweight non-sleeping
    > > attempt to allocate. GFP_NORETRY will give you potentially sleeping but
    > > an opportunistic-easy-to-fail attempt. And so on. See how that is
    > > absolutely free of any page writeback or any specific locking.
    >
    > With above reason I mentioned, I wanted to express __GFP_NORETRY as
    > "opportunistic-easy-to-fail attempt" to support cma_alloc as "failfast"
    > for migration context.

    Yes that is fine. And please note that I do not push for NOWAIT
    semantic. If there is no user for that now then fine.
    --
    Michal Hocko
    SUSE Labs

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-01-27 09:18    [W:4.240 / U:0.056 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site