All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	mtosatti@redhat.com, aarcange@redhat.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	andi@firstfloor.org, davidlohr@hp.com, rientjes@google.com,
	isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, yinghai@kernel.org,
	riel@redhat.com, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com, kirill@shutemov.name
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] hugetlb: add support gigantic page allocation at runtime
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:37:26 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140422173726.738d0635@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140417160110.3f36b972b25525fbbe23681b@linux-foundation.org>

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:01:10 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:58:40 -0400 Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > The HugeTLB subsystem uses the buddy allocator to allocate hugepages during
> > runtime. This means that hugepages allocation during runtime is limited to
> > MAX_ORDER order. For archs supporting gigantic pages (that is, page sizes
> > greater than MAX_ORDER), this in turn means that those pages can't be
> > allocated at runtime.
> 
> Dumb question: what's wrong with just increasing MAX_ORDER?

To be honest I'm not a buddy allocator expert and I'm not familiar with
what is involved in increasing MAX_ORDER. What I do know though is that it's
not just a matter of increasing a macro's value. For example, for sparsemem
support we have this check (include/linux/mmzone.h:1084):

#if (MAX_ORDER - 1 + PAGE_SHIFT) > SECTION_SIZE_BITS
#error Allocator MAX_ORDER exceeds SECTION_SIZE
#endif

I _guess_ it's because we can't allocate more pages than what's within a
section on sparsemem. Can sparsemem and the other stuff be changed to
accommodate a bigger MAX_ORDER? I don't know. Is it worth it to increase
MAX_ORDER and do all the required changes, given that a bigger MAX_ORDER is
only useful for HugeTLB and the archs supporting gigantic pages? I'd guess not.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	mtosatti@redhat.com, aarcange@redhat.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	andi@firstfloor.org, davidlohr@hp.com, rientjes@google.com,
	isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, yinghai@kernel.org,
	riel@redhat.com, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com, kirill@shutemov.name
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] hugetlb: add support gigantic page allocation at runtime
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:37:26 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140422173726.738d0635@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140417160110.3f36b972b25525fbbe23681b@linux-foundation.org>

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:01:10 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:58:40 -0400 Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > The HugeTLB subsystem uses the buddy allocator to allocate hugepages during
> > runtime. This means that hugepages allocation during runtime is limited to
> > MAX_ORDER order. For archs supporting gigantic pages (that is, page sizes
> > greater than MAX_ORDER), this in turn means that those pages can't be
> > allocated at runtime.
> 
> Dumb question: what's wrong with just increasing MAX_ORDER?

To be honest I'm not a buddy allocator expert and I'm not familiar with
what is involved in increasing MAX_ORDER. What I do know though is that it's
not just a matter of increasing a macro's value. For example, for sparsemem
support we have this check (include/linux/mmzone.h:1084):

#if (MAX_ORDER - 1 + PAGE_SHIFT) > SECTION_SIZE_BITS
#error Allocator MAX_ORDER exceeds SECTION_SIZE
#endif

I _guess_ it's because we can't allocate more pages than what's within a
section on sparsemem. Can sparsemem and the other stuff be changed to
accommodate a bigger MAX_ORDER? I don't know. Is it worth it to increase
MAX_ORDER and do all the required changes, given that a bigger MAX_ORDER is
only useful for HugeTLB and the archs supporting gigantic pages? I'd guess not.

  reply	other threads:[~2014-04-22 21:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-04-10 17:58 [PATCH v3 0/5] hugetlb: add support gigantic page allocation at runtime Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-10 17:58 ` Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-10 17:58 ` [PATCH 1/5] hugetlb: prep_compound_gigantic_page(): drop __init marker Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-10 17:58   ` Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-10 17:58 ` [PATCH 2/5] hugetlb: add hstate_is_gigantic() Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-10 17:58   ` Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-10 17:58 ` [PATCH 3/5] hugetlb: update_and_free_page(): don't clear PG_reserved bit Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-10 17:58   ` Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-10 17:58 ` [PATCH 4/5] hugetlb: move helpers up in the file Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-10 17:58   ` Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-10 17:58 ` [PATCH 5/5] hugetlb: add support for gigantic page allocation at runtime Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-10 17:58   ` Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-13 23:31   ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2014-04-13 23:31     ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2014-04-17 23:00   ` Andrew Morton
2014-04-17 23:00     ` Andrew Morton
2014-04-22 21:19     ` Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-22 21:19       ` Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-10 21:44 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] hugetlb: add support " Davidlohr Bueso
2014-04-10 21:44   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-04-11 12:08 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-04-14  7:31 ` Zhang Yanfei
2014-04-14  7:31   ` Zhang Yanfei
2014-04-17 15:13 ` Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-17 15:13   ` Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-17 18:52   ` Andrew Morton
2014-04-17 18:52     ` Andrew Morton
2014-04-17 19:09     ` Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-17 19:09       ` Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-17 23:01 ` Andrew Morton
2014-04-17 23:01   ` Andrew Morton
2014-04-22 21:37   ` Luiz Capitulino [this message]
2014-04-22 21:37     ` Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-22 21:55     ` Andrew Morton
2014-04-22 21:55       ` Andrew Morton
2014-04-25 20:18       ` Luiz Capitulino
2014-04-25 20:18         ` Luiz Capitulino

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20140422173726.738d0635@redhat.com \
    --to=lcapitulino@redhat.com \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
    --cc=isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.