Re: 答复: 答复: [PATCH] arm64: mm: free unused memmap for sparse memory model that define VMEMMAP

From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: "Song Bao Hua \(Barry Song\)" <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>,
	sujunfei <sujunfei2@hisilicon.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"steve.capper@arm.com" <steve.capper@arm.com>,
	"Chenfeng \(puck\)" <puck.chen@hisilicon.com>,
	"Xiaqing \(A\)" <saberlily.xia@hisilicon.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	fengbaopeng <fengbaopeng2@hisilicon.com>,
	zhaojiapeng <zhaojiapeng@huawei.com>,
	"liwei \(CM\)" <liwei213@huawei.com>,
	"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
	"nsaenzjulienne@suse.de" <nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>,
	butao <butao@hisilicon.com>
Subject: Re: 答复: 答复: [PATCH] arm64: mm: free unused memmap for sparse memory model that define VMEMMAP
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:18:37 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200723131837.GC1975360@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200723112926.GB7315@gaia>

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:29:26PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 01:40:34PM +0000, liwei (CM) wrote:
> > Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 08:41:17AM +0000, liwei (CM) wrote:
> > > > Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:32:03PM +0800, Wei Li wrote:
> > > > > > For the memory hole, sparse memory model that define 
> > > > > > SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP do not free the reserved memory for the page
> > > > > > map, this patch do it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Are there numbers showing how much memory is actually freed?
> > > > > 
> > > > > The freeing of empty memmap would become rather complex with these 
> > > > > changes, do the memory savings justify it?
> > > > 
> > > > In the sparse memory model, the size of a section is 1 GB 
> > > > (SECTION_SIZE_BITS 30) by default.
> > > 
> > > Can we reduce SECTION_SIZE_BITS instead? Say 26?
> > 
> > Yes, you are right, reduce SECTION_SIZE_BITS to 26 can save almost the
> > same memory as the patch. 
> > 
> > 1) However, it is not clear whether changing the section size has any
> > other impact.
> 
> Well, we should analyse this.
> 
> > 2) Just like the flat memory model and the sparse memory model that
> > does not define VMEMMAP, both of them have their own ways to free
> > unused memmap. I think we've given a similar way for sparse memory
> > define VMEMMAP.
> 
> I think we did it for flatmem initially (on arm32) and added support for
> sparsemem later on, so free_unused_memmap() had to cope with sparse
> sections. On arm64 we introduced vmemmap support and didn't bother with
> the freeing at all because of the added complexity of the vmemmap page
> tables.
> 
> I wonder whether we should just disallow flatmem and non-vmemmap
> sparsemem on arm64. Is there any value in keeping them around?

FLATMEM is useful for UMA systems with a single memory bank, so probably
it's worth keeping it for low end machines.

Non-vmemmap sparsemem is essentially disable in arch/arm64/Kconfig, so
for NUMA configurations SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP is the only choice.

> > 3) This explicit free unused memmap method does reduce unnecessary
> > memory waste for users who do not notice the section size
> > modification.
> 
> But if we changed SECTION_SIZE_BITS in the mainline kernel, then we
> wouldn't need additional code to free the unused memmap.

Moreover if we reduce SECTION_SIZE_BITS, we can drop
free_unused_memmap() and since the arm64 memory map for sparse will not
differ from other arches we can drop custom pfn_valid() as well.

> -- 
> Catalin

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel