From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
mpe@ellerman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
npiggin@gmail.com, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu
Cc: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] mm/hotplug: Allow pageblock alignment via altmap reservation
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 22:59:34 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h6pt2p6p.fsf@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5ee3550d-5bbe-4223-722b-9a388f86fc21@redhat.com>
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes:
> On 24.07.23 18:02, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
>> On 7/24/23 9:11 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 24.07.23 17:16, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * In "forced" memmap_on_memory mode, we always align the vmemmap size up to cover
>>>>> * full pageblocks. That way, we can add memory even if the vmemmap size is not properly
>>>>> * aligned, however, we might waste memory.
>>>>> */
>>>>
>>>> I am finding that confusing. We do want things to be pageblock_nr_pages aligned both ways.
>>>> With MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_FORCE, we do that by allocating more space for memmap and
>>>> in the default case we do that by making sure only memory blocks of specific size supporting
>>>> that alignment can use MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY feature.
>>>
>>> See the usage inm hp_supports_memmap_on_memory(), I guess that makes sense then.
>>>
>>> But if you have any ideas on how to clarify that (terminology), I'm all ears!
>>>
>>
>>
>> I updated the commit message
>>
>> mm/hotplug: Support memmap_on_memory when memmap is not aligned to pageblocks
>>
>> Currently, memmap_on_memory feature is only supported with memory block
>> sizes that result in vmemmap pages covering full page blocks. This is
>> because memory onlining/offlining code requires applicable ranges to be
>> pageblock-aligned, for example, to set the migratetypes properly.
>>
>> This patch helps to lift that restriction by reserving more pages than
>> required for vmemmap space. This helps to align the start addr to be
>> page block aligned with different memory block sizes. This implies the
>> kernel will be reserving some pages for every memoryblock. This also
>> allows the memmap on memory feature to be widely useful with different
>> memory block size values.
>>
>> For ex: with 64K page size and 256MiB memory block size, we require 4
>> pages to map vmemmap pages, To align things correctly we end up adding a
>> reserve of 28 pages. ie, for every 4096 pages 28 pages get reserved.
>>
>>
>
> Much better.
>
>> Also while implementing your suggestion to use memory_block_memmap_on_memory_size()
>> I am finding it not really useful because in mhp_supports_memmap_on_memory() we are checking
>> if remaining_size is pageblock_nr_pages aligned (dax_kmem may want to use that helper
>> later).
>
> Let's focus on this patchset here first.
>
> Factoring out how manye memmap pages we actually need vs. how many pages
> we need when aligning up sound very reasonable to me.
>
>
> Can you elaborate what the problem is?
>
>> Also I still think altmap.reserve is easier because of the start_pfn calculation.
>> (more on this below)
>
> Can you elaborate? Do you mean the try_remove_memory() change?
>
>>
>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> + return arch_supports_memmap_on_memory(size);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> @@ -1311,7 +1391,11 @@ int __ref add_memory_resource(int nid, struct resource *res, mhp_t mhp_flags)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> struct mhp_params params = { .pgprot = pgprot_mhp(PAGE_KERNEL) };
>>>>>> enum memblock_flags memblock_flags = MEMBLOCK_NONE;
>>>>>> - struct vmem_altmap mhp_altmap = {};
>>>>>> + struct vmem_altmap mhp_altmap = {
>>>>>> + .base_pfn = PHYS_PFN(res->start),
>>>>>> + .end_pfn = PHYS_PFN(res->end),
>>>>>> + .reserve = memory_block_align_base(resource_size(res)),
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you remind me why we have to set reserve here at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW, can't we simply set
>>>>>
>>>>> .free = memory_block_memmap_on_memory_size();
>>>>>
>>>>> end then pass
>>>>>
>>>>> mhp_altmap.alloc + mhp_altmap.free
>>>>>
>>>>> to create_memory_block_devices() instead?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But with the dax usage of altmap, altmap->reserve is what we use to reserve things to get
>>>> the required alignment. One difference is where we allocate the struct page at. For this specific
>>>> case it should not matter.
>>>>
>>>> static unsigned long __meminit vmem_altmap_next_pfn(struct vmem_altmap *altmap)
>>>> {
>>>> return altmap->base_pfn + altmap->reserve + altmap->alloc
>>>> + altmap->align;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> And other is where we online a memory block
>>>>
>>>> We find the start pfn using mem->altmap->alloc + mem->altmap->reserve;
>>>>
>>>> Considering altmap->reserve is what dax pfn_dev use, is there a reason you want to use altmap->free for this?
>>>
>>> "Reserve" is all about "reserving that much memory for driver usage".
>>>
>>> We don't care about that. We simply want vmemmap allocations coming from the pageblock(s) we set aside. Where exactly, we don't care.
>>>
>>>> I find it confusing to update free when we haven't allocated any altmap blocks yet.
>>>
>>> "
>>> @reserve: pages mapped, but reserved for driver use (relative to @base)"
>>> @free: free pages set aside in the mapping for memmap storage
>>> @alloc: track pages consumed, private to vmemmap_populate()
>>> "
>>>
>>> To me, that implies that we can ignore "reserve". We set @free to the aligned value and let the vmemmap get allocated from anything in there.
>>>
>>> free + alloc should always sum up to our set-aside pageblock(s), no?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The difference is
>>
>> mhp_altmap.free = PHYS_PFN(size) - reserved blocks;
>>
>> ie, with 256MiB memory block size with 64K pages, we need 4 memmap pages and we reserve 28 pages for aligment.
>>
>> mhp_altmap.free = PHYS_PFN(size) - 28.
>>
>> So that 4 pages from which we are allocating the memmap pages are still counted in free page.
>>
>> We could all make it work by doing
>>
>> mhp_altmap.free = PHYS_PFN(size) - (memory_block_memmap_on_memory_size() - memory_block_memmap_size())
>>
>> But is that any better than what we have now? I understand the term "reserved for driver use" is confusing for this use case.
>> But it is really reserving things for required alignment.
>
>
> Let's take a step back.
>
> altmap->alloc tells us how much was already allocated.
>
> altmap->free tells us how much memory we can allocate at max (confusing,
> but see vmem_altmap_nr_free()).
>
> altmap->free should actually have been called differently.
>
>
> I think it's currently even *wrong* to set free = PHYS_PFN(size). We
> don't want to allocate beyond the first pageblock(s) we selected.
>
You are correct. The calculation of altmap.free was wrong.
It was wrong upstream and also had wrong computation in the ppc64
upstream code.
modified arch/powerpc/mm/init_64.c
@@ -326,8 +326,7 @@ void __ref __vmemmap_free(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
start = ALIGN_DOWN(start, page_size);
if (altmap) {
alt_start = altmap->base_pfn;
- alt_end = altmap->base_pfn + altmap->reserve +
- altmap->free + altmap->alloc + altmap->align;
+ alt_end = altmap->base_pfn + altmap->reserve + altmap->free ;
}
pr_debug("vmemmap_free %lx...%lx\n", start, end);
Fixing all that up the patch is now updated as below
1 file changed, 109 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
mm/memory_hotplug.c | 124 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
modified mm/memory_hotplug.c
@@ -41,17 +41,91 @@
#include "internal.h"
#include "shuffle.h"
+enum {
+ MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_DISABLE = 0,
+ MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_ENABLE,
+ MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_FORCE,
+};
+
+static int memmap_mode __read_mostly = MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_DISABLE;
+
+static inline unsigned long memory_block_memmap_size(void)
+{
+ return PHYS_PFN(memory_block_size_bytes()) * sizeof(struct page);
+}
+
+static inline unsigned long memory_block_memmap_on_memory_size(void)
+{
+ unsigned long size = memory_block_memmap_size();
+
+ /*
+ * In "forced" memmap_on_memory mode, we add extra pages to align the
+ * vmemmap size up to cover full pageblocks. That way, we can add memory
+ * even if the vmemmap size is not properly aligned, however, we might waste
+ * memory.
+ */
+ if (memmap_mode == MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_FORCE)
+ return ALIGN(size, PFN_PHYS(pageblock_nr_pages));
+ return size;
+}
+
#ifdef CONFIG_MHP_MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY
/*
* memory_hotplug.memmap_on_memory parameter
*/
-static bool memmap_on_memory __ro_after_init;
-module_param(memmap_on_memory, bool, 0444);
-MODULE_PARM_DESC(memmap_on_memory, "Enable memmap on memory for memory hotplug");
+static int set_memmap_mode(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp)
+{
+ int ret, mode;
+ bool enabled;
+
+ if (sysfs_streq(val, "force") || sysfs_streq(val, "FORCE")) {
+ mode = MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_FORCE;
+ goto matched;
+ }
+
+ ret = kstrtobool(val, &enabled);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+ if (enabled)
+ mode = MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_ENABLE;
+ else
+ mode = MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_DISABLE;
+
+matched:
+ *((int *)kp->arg) = mode;
+ if (mode == MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_FORCE) {
+ pr_info("Memory hotplug will reserve %ld pages in each memory block\n",
+ memory_block_memmap_on_memory_size() - memory_block_memmap_size());
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int get_memmap_mode(char *buffer, const struct kernel_param *kp)
+{
+ if (*((int *)kp->arg) == MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_FORCE)
+ return sprintf(buffer, "force\n");
+ if (*((int *)kp->arg) == MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_ENABLE)
+ return sprintf(buffer, "y\n");
+
+ return sprintf(buffer, "n\n");
+}
+
+static const struct kernel_param_ops memmap_mode_ops = {
+ .set = set_memmap_mode,
+ .get = get_memmap_mode,
+};
+module_param_cb(memmap_on_memory, &memmap_mode_ops, &memmap_mode, 0444);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(memmap_on_memory, "Enable memmap on memory for memory hotplug\n"
+ "With value \"force\" it could result in memory wastage due to memmap size limitations \n"
+ "For example, if the memmap for a memory block requires 1 MiB, but the pageblock \n"
+ "size is 2 MiB, 1 MiB of hotplugged memory will be wasted. Note that there are \n"
+ "still cases where the feature cannot be enforced: for example, if the memmap is \n"
+ "smaller than a single page, or if the architecture does not support the forced \n"
+ "mode in all configurations. (y/n/force)");
static inline bool mhp_memmap_on_memory(void)
{
- return memmap_on_memory;
+ return memmap_mode != MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_DISABLE;
}
#else
static inline bool mhp_memmap_on_memory(void)
@@ -1266,7 +1340,7 @@ static bool mhp_supports_memmap_on_memory(unsigned long size)
{
unsigned long nr_vmemmap_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
unsigned long vmemmap_size = nr_vmemmap_pages * sizeof(struct page);
- unsigned long remaining_size = size - vmemmap_size;
+ unsigned long memmap_on_memory_size = memory_block_memmap_on_memory_size();
/*
* Besides having arch support and the feature enabled at runtime, we
@@ -1294,10 +1368,28 @@ static bool mhp_supports_memmap_on_memory(unsigned long size)
* altmap as an alternative source of memory, and we do not exactly
* populate a single PMD.
*/
- return mhp_memmap_on_memory() &&
- size == memory_block_size_bytes() &&
- IS_ALIGNED(remaining_size, (pageblock_nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT)) &&
- arch_supports_memmap_on_memory(size);
+ if (!mhp_memmap_on_memory() || size != memory_block_size_bytes())
+ return false;
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure the vmemmap allocation is fully contained
+ * so that we always allocate vmemmap memory from altmap area.
+ */
+ if (!IS_ALIGNED(vmemmap_size, PAGE_SIZE))
+ return false;
+
+ /*
+ * start pfn should be pageblock_nr_pages aligned for correctly
+ * setting migrate types
+ */
+ if (!IS_ALIGNED(memmap_on_memory_size, PFN_PHYS(pageblock_nr_pages)))
+ return false;
+
+ if (memmap_on_memory_size == memory_block_size_bytes())
+ /* No effective hotplugged memory doesn't make sense. */
+ return false;
+
+ return arch_supports_memmap_on_memory(size);
}
/*
@@ -1310,7 +1402,10 @@ int __ref add_memory_resource(int nid, struct resource *res, mhp_t mhp_flags)
{
struct mhp_params params = { .pgprot = pgprot_mhp(PAGE_KERNEL) };
enum memblock_flags memblock_flags = MEMBLOCK_NONE;
- struct vmem_altmap mhp_altmap = {};
+ struct vmem_altmap mhp_altmap = {
+ .base_pfn = PHYS_PFN(res->start),
+ .end_pfn = PHYS_PFN(res->end),
+ };
struct memory_group *group = NULL;
u64 start, size;
bool new_node = false;
@@ -1355,8 +1450,7 @@ int __ref add_memory_resource(int nid, struct resource *res, mhp_t mhp_flags)
*/
if (mhp_flags & MHP_MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY) {
if (mhp_supports_memmap_on_memory(size)) {
- mhp_altmap.free = PHYS_PFN(size);
- mhp_altmap.base_pfn = PHYS_PFN(start);
+ mhp_altmap.free = PHYS_PFN(memory_block_memmap_on_memory_size());
params.altmap = &mhp_altmap;
}
/* fallback to not using altmap */
@@ -1368,8 +1462,7 @@ int __ref add_memory_resource(int nid, struct resource *res, mhp_t mhp_flags)
goto error;
/* create memory block devices after memory was added */
- ret = create_memory_block_devices(start, size, mhp_altmap.alloc,
- group);
+ ret = create_memory_block_devices(start, size, mhp_altmap.free, group);
if (ret) {
arch_remove_memory(start, size, NULL);
goto error;
@@ -2090,7 +2183,8 @@ static int __ref try_remove_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
* right thing if we used vmem_altmap when hot-adding
* the range.
*/
- mhp_altmap.alloc = nr_vmemmap_pages;
+ mhp_altmap.base_pfn = PHYS_PFN(start);
+ mhp_altmap.free = nr_vmemmap_pages;
altmap = &mhp_altmap;
}
}
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
mpe@ellerman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
npiggin@gmail.com, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] mm/hotplug: Allow pageblock alignment via altmap reservation
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 22:59:34 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h6pt2p6p.fsf@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5ee3550d-5bbe-4223-722b-9a388f86fc21@redhat.com>
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes:
> On 24.07.23 18:02, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
>> On 7/24/23 9:11 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 24.07.23 17:16, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * In "forced" memmap_on_memory mode, we always align the vmemmap size up to cover
>>>>> * full pageblocks. That way, we can add memory even if the vmemmap size is not properly
>>>>> * aligned, however, we might waste memory.
>>>>> */
>>>>
>>>> I am finding that confusing. We do want things to be pageblock_nr_pages aligned both ways.
>>>> With MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_FORCE, we do that by allocating more space for memmap and
>>>> in the default case we do that by making sure only memory blocks of specific size supporting
>>>> that alignment can use MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY feature.
>>>
>>> See the usage inm hp_supports_memmap_on_memory(), I guess that makes sense then.
>>>
>>> But if you have any ideas on how to clarify that (terminology), I'm all ears!
>>>
>>
>>
>> I updated the commit message
>>
>> mm/hotplug: Support memmap_on_memory when memmap is not aligned to pageblocks
>>
>> Currently, memmap_on_memory feature is only supported with memory block
>> sizes that result in vmemmap pages covering full page blocks. This is
>> because memory onlining/offlining code requires applicable ranges to be
>> pageblock-aligned, for example, to set the migratetypes properly.
>>
>> This patch helps to lift that restriction by reserving more pages than
>> required for vmemmap space. This helps to align the start addr to be
>> page block aligned with different memory block sizes. This implies the
>> kernel will be reserving some pages for every memoryblock. This also
>> allows the memmap on memory feature to be widely useful with different
>> memory block size values.
>>
>> For ex: with 64K page size and 256MiB memory block size, we require 4
>> pages to map vmemmap pages, To align things correctly we end up adding a
>> reserve of 28 pages. ie, for every 4096 pages 28 pages get reserved.
>>
>>
>
> Much better.
>
>> Also while implementing your suggestion to use memory_block_memmap_on_memory_size()
>> I am finding it not really useful because in mhp_supports_memmap_on_memory() we are checking
>> if remaining_size is pageblock_nr_pages aligned (dax_kmem may want to use that helper
>> later).
>
> Let's focus on this patchset here first.
>
> Factoring out how manye memmap pages we actually need vs. how many pages
> we need when aligning up sound very reasonable to me.
>
>
> Can you elaborate what the problem is?
>
>> Also I still think altmap.reserve is easier because of the start_pfn calculation.
>> (more on this below)
>
> Can you elaborate? Do you mean the try_remove_memory() change?
>
>>
>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> + return arch_supports_memmap_on_memory(size);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> @@ -1311,7 +1391,11 @@ int __ref add_memory_resource(int nid, struct resource *res, mhp_t mhp_flags)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> struct mhp_params params = { .pgprot = pgprot_mhp(PAGE_KERNEL) };
>>>>>> enum memblock_flags memblock_flags = MEMBLOCK_NONE;
>>>>>> - struct vmem_altmap mhp_altmap = {};
>>>>>> + struct vmem_altmap mhp_altmap = {
>>>>>> + .base_pfn = PHYS_PFN(res->start),
>>>>>> + .end_pfn = PHYS_PFN(res->end),
>>>>>> + .reserve = memory_block_align_base(resource_size(res)),
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you remind me why we have to set reserve here at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW, can't we simply set
>>>>>
>>>>> .free = memory_block_memmap_on_memory_size();
>>>>>
>>>>> end then pass
>>>>>
>>>>> mhp_altmap.alloc + mhp_altmap.free
>>>>>
>>>>> to create_memory_block_devices() instead?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But with the dax usage of altmap, altmap->reserve is what we use to reserve things to get
>>>> the required alignment. One difference is where we allocate the struct page at. For this specific
>>>> case it should not matter.
>>>>
>>>> static unsigned long __meminit vmem_altmap_next_pfn(struct vmem_altmap *altmap)
>>>> {
>>>> return altmap->base_pfn + altmap->reserve + altmap->alloc
>>>> + altmap->align;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> And other is where we online a memory block
>>>>
>>>> We find the start pfn using mem->altmap->alloc + mem->altmap->reserve;
>>>>
>>>> Considering altmap->reserve is what dax pfn_dev use, is there a reason you want to use altmap->free for this?
>>>
>>> "Reserve" is all about "reserving that much memory for driver usage".
>>>
>>> We don't care about that. We simply want vmemmap allocations coming from the pageblock(s) we set aside. Where exactly, we don't care.
>>>
>>>> I find it confusing to update free when we haven't allocated any altmap blocks yet.
>>>
>>> "
>>> @reserve: pages mapped, but reserved for driver use (relative to @base)"
>>> @free: free pages set aside in the mapping for memmap storage
>>> @alloc: track pages consumed, private to vmemmap_populate()
>>> "
>>>
>>> To me, that implies that we can ignore "reserve". We set @free to the aligned value and let the vmemmap get allocated from anything in there.
>>>
>>> free + alloc should always sum up to our set-aside pageblock(s), no?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The difference is
>>
>> mhp_altmap.free = PHYS_PFN(size) - reserved blocks;
>>
>> ie, with 256MiB memory block size with 64K pages, we need 4 memmap pages and we reserve 28 pages for aligment.
>>
>> mhp_altmap.free = PHYS_PFN(size) - 28.
>>
>> So that 4 pages from which we are allocating the memmap pages are still counted in free page.
>>
>> We could all make it work by doing
>>
>> mhp_altmap.free = PHYS_PFN(size) - (memory_block_memmap_on_memory_size() - memory_block_memmap_size())
>>
>> But is that any better than what we have now? I understand the term "reserved for driver use" is confusing for this use case.
>> But it is really reserving things for required alignment.
>
>
> Let's take a step back.
>
> altmap->alloc tells us how much was already allocated.
>
> altmap->free tells us how much memory we can allocate at max (confusing,
> but see vmem_altmap_nr_free()).
>
> altmap->free should actually have been called differently.
>
>
> I think it's currently even *wrong* to set free = PHYS_PFN(size). We
> don't want to allocate beyond the first pageblock(s) we selected.
>
You are correct. The calculation of altmap.free was wrong.
It was wrong upstream and also had wrong computation in the ppc64
upstream code.
modified arch/powerpc/mm/init_64.c
@@ -326,8 +326,7 @@ void __ref __vmemmap_free(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
start = ALIGN_DOWN(start, page_size);
if (altmap) {
alt_start = altmap->base_pfn;
- alt_end = altmap->base_pfn + altmap->reserve +
- altmap->free + altmap->alloc + altmap->align;
+ alt_end = altmap->base_pfn + altmap->reserve + altmap->free ;
}
pr_debug("vmemmap_free %lx...%lx\n", start, end);
Fixing all that up the patch is now updated as below
1 file changed, 109 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
mm/memory_hotplug.c | 124 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
modified mm/memory_hotplug.c
@@ -41,17 +41,91 @@
#include "internal.h"
#include "shuffle.h"
+enum {
+ MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_DISABLE = 0,
+ MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_ENABLE,
+ MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_FORCE,
+};
+
+static int memmap_mode __read_mostly = MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_DISABLE;
+
+static inline unsigned long memory_block_memmap_size(void)
+{
+ return PHYS_PFN(memory_block_size_bytes()) * sizeof(struct page);
+}
+
+static inline unsigned long memory_block_memmap_on_memory_size(void)
+{
+ unsigned long size = memory_block_memmap_size();
+
+ /*
+ * In "forced" memmap_on_memory mode, we add extra pages to align the
+ * vmemmap size up to cover full pageblocks. That way, we can add memory
+ * even if the vmemmap size is not properly aligned, however, we might waste
+ * memory.
+ */
+ if (memmap_mode == MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_FORCE)
+ return ALIGN(size, PFN_PHYS(pageblock_nr_pages));
+ return size;
+}
+
#ifdef CONFIG_MHP_MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY
/*
* memory_hotplug.memmap_on_memory parameter
*/
-static bool memmap_on_memory __ro_after_init;
-module_param(memmap_on_memory, bool, 0444);
-MODULE_PARM_DESC(memmap_on_memory, "Enable memmap on memory for memory hotplug");
+static int set_memmap_mode(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp)
+{
+ int ret, mode;
+ bool enabled;
+
+ if (sysfs_streq(val, "force") || sysfs_streq(val, "FORCE")) {
+ mode = MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_FORCE;
+ goto matched;
+ }
+
+ ret = kstrtobool(val, &enabled);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+ if (enabled)
+ mode = MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_ENABLE;
+ else
+ mode = MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_DISABLE;
+
+matched:
+ *((int *)kp->arg) = mode;
+ if (mode == MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_FORCE) {
+ pr_info("Memory hotplug will reserve %ld pages in each memory block\n",
+ memory_block_memmap_on_memory_size() - memory_block_memmap_size());
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int get_memmap_mode(char *buffer, const struct kernel_param *kp)
+{
+ if (*((int *)kp->arg) == MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_FORCE)
+ return sprintf(buffer, "force\n");
+ if (*((int *)kp->arg) == MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_ENABLE)
+ return sprintf(buffer, "y\n");
+
+ return sprintf(buffer, "n\n");
+}
+
+static const struct kernel_param_ops memmap_mode_ops = {
+ .set = set_memmap_mode,
+ .get = get_memmap_mode,
+};
+module_param_cb(memmap_on_memory, &memmap_mode_ops, &memmap_mode, 0444);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(memmap_on_memory, "Enable memmap on memory for memory hotplug\n"
+ "With value \"force\" it could result in memory wastage due to memmap size limitations \n"
+ "For example, if the memmap for a memory block requires 1 MiB, but the pageblock \n"
+ "size is 2 MiB, 1 MiB of hotplugged memory will be wasted. Note that there are \n"
+ "still cases where the feature cannot be enforced: for example, if the memmap is \n"
+ "smaller than a single page, or if the architecture does not support the forced \n"
+ "mode in all configurations. (y/n/force)");
static inline bool mhp_memmap_on_memory(void)
{
- return memmap_on_memory;
+ return memmap_mode != MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_DISABLE;
}
#else
static inline bool mhp_memmap_on_memory(void)
@@ -1266,7 +1340,7 @@ static bool mhp_supports_memmap_on_memory(unsigned long size)
{
unsigned long nr_vmemmap_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
unsigned long vmemmap_size = nr_vmemmap_pages * sizeof(struct page);
- unsigned long remaining_size = size - vmemmap_size;
+ unsigned long memmap_on_memory_size = memory_block_memmap_on_memory_size();
/*
* Besides having arch support and the feature enabled at runtime, we
@@ -1294,10 +1368,28 @@ static bool mhp_supports_memmap_on_memory(unsigned long size)
* altmap as an alternative source of memory, and we do not exactly
* populate a single PMD.
*/
- return mhp_memmap_on_memory() &&
- size == memory_block_size_bytes() &&
- IS_ALIGNED(remaining_size, (pageblock_nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT)) &&
- arch_supports_memmap_on_memory(size);
+ if (!mhp_memmap_on_memory() || size != memory_block_size_bytes())
+ return false;
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure the vmemmap allocation is fully contained
+ * so that we always allocate vmemmap memory from altmap area.
+ */
+ if (!IS_ALIGNED(vmemmap_size, PAGE_SIZE))
+ return false;
+
+ /*
+ * start pfn should be pageblock_nr_pages aligned for correctly
+ * setting migrate types
+ */
+ if (!IS_ALIGNED(memmap_on_memory_size, PFN_PHYS(pageblock_nr_pages)))
+ return false;
+
+ if (memmap_on_memory_size == memory_block_size_bytes())
+ /* No effective hotplugged memory doesn't make sense. */
+ return false;
+
+ return arch_supports_memmap_on_memory(size);
}
/*
@@ -1310,7 +1402,10 @@ int __ref add_memory_resource(int nid, struct resource *res, mhp_t mhp_flags)
{
struct mhp_params params = { .pgprot = pgprot_mhp(PAGE_KERNEL) };
enum memblock_flags memblock_flags = MEMBLOCK_NONE;
- struct vmem_altmap mhp_altmap = {};
+ struct vmem_altmap mhp_altmap = {
+ .base_pfn = PHYS_PFN(res->start),
+ .end_pfn = PHYS_PFN(res->end),
+ };
struct memory_group *group = NULL;
u64 start, size;
bool new_node = false;
@@ -1355,8 +1450,7 @@ int __ref add_memory_resource(int nid, struct resource *res, mhp_t mhp_flags)
*/
if (mhp_flags & MHP_MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY) {
if (mhp_supports_memmap_on_memory(size)) {
- mhp_altmap.free = PHYS_PFN(size);
- mhp_altmap.base_pfn = PHYS_PFN(start);
+ mhp_altmap.free = PHYS_PFN(memory_block_memmap_on_memory_size());
params.altmap = &mhp_altmap;
}
/* fallback to not using altmap */
@@ -1368,8 +1462,7 @@ int __ref add_memory_resource(int nid, struct resource *res, mhp_t mhp_flags)
goto error;
/* create memory block devices after memory was added */
- ret = create_memory_block_devices(start, size, mhp_altmap.alloc,
- group);
+ ret = create_memory_block_devices(start, size, mhp_altmap.free, group);
if (ret) {
arch_remove_memory(start, size, NULL);
goto error;
@@ -2090,7 +2183,8 @@ static int __ref try_remove_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
* right thing if we used vmem_altmap when hot-adding
* the range.
*/
- mhp_altmap.alloc = nr_vmemmap_pages;
+ mhp_altmap.base_pfn = PHYS_PFN(start);
+ mhp_altmap.free = nr_vmemmap_pages;
altmap = &mhp_altmap;
}
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-24 17:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-18 2:44 [PATCH v4 0/6] Add support for memmap on memory feature on ppc64 Aneesh Kumar K.V
2023-07-18 2:44 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2023-07-18 2:44 ` [PATCH v4 1/6] mm/hotplug: Simplify ARCH_MHP_MEMMAP_ON_MEMORY_ENABLE kconfig Aneesh Kumar K.V
2023-07-18 2:44 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2023-07-18 2:44 ` [PATCH v4 2/6] mm/hotplug: Allow memmap on memory hotplug request to fallback Aneesh Kumar K.V
2023-07-18 2:44 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2023-07-24 12:29 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-24 12:29 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-18 2:44 ` [PATCH v4 3/6] mm/hotplug: Allow architecture to override memmap on memory support check Aneesh Kumar K.V
2023-07-18 2:44 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2023-07-24 12:30 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-24 12:30 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-24 13:47 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-24 13:47 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-18 2:44 ` [PATCH v4 4/6] mm/hotplug: Allow pageblock alignment via altmap reservation Aneesh Kumar K.V
2023-07-18 2:44 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2023-07-24 14:33 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-24 14:33 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-24 15:16 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2023-07-24 15:16 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2023-07-24 15:41 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-24 15:41 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-24 16:02 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2023-07-24 16:02 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2023-07-24 16:24 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-24 16:24 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-24 17:29 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V [this message]
2023-07-24 17:29 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2023-07-18 2:44 ` [PATCH v4 5/6] powerpc/book3s64/memhotplug: Enable memmap on memory for radix Aneesh Kumar K.V
2023-07-18 2:44 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2023-07-24 14:34 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-24 14:34 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-24 14:46 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2023-07-24 14:46 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2023-07-24 15:52 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-24 15:52 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-18 2:44 ` [PATCH v4 6/6] mm/hotplug: Embed vmem_altmap details in memory block Aneesh Kumar K.V
2023-07-18 2:44 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
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=87h6pt2p6p.fsf@linux.ibm.com \
--to=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=vishal.l.verma@intel.com \
/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.