Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 4/6] mm/page_alloc: sort out the alloc_contig_range() gfp flags mess

[Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>]

On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 10:28:39AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04.12.24 10:15, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 10:03:28AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > On 12/4/24 09:59, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 08:19:02PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > It was always set using "GFP_USER | __GFP_MOVABLE | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL",
> > > > > and I removed the same flag combination in #2 from memory offline code, and
> > > > > we do have the exact same thing in do_migrate_range() in
> > > > > mm/memory_hotplug.c.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We should investigate if__GFP_HARDWALL is the right thing to use here, and
> > > > > if we can get rid of that by switching to GFP_KERNEL in all these places.
> > > > 
> > > > Why would not we want __GFP_HARDWALL set?
> > > > Without it, we could potentially migrate the page to a node which is not
> > > > part of the cpuset of the task that originally allocated it, thus violating the
> > > > policy? Is not that a problem?
> > > 
> > > The task doing the alloc_contig_range() will likely not be the same task as
> > > the one that originally allocated the page, so its policy would be
> > > different, no? So even with __GFP_HARDWALL we might be already migrating
> > > outside the original tasks's constraint? Am I missing something?
> > 
> > Yes, that is right, I thought we derive the policy from the old page
> > somehow when migrating it, but reading the code does not seem to be the
> > case.
> > 
> > Looking at prepare_alloc_pages(), if !ac->nodemask, which would be the
> > case here, we would get the policy from the current task
> > (alloc_contig_range()) when cpusets are enabled.
> > 
> > So yes, I am a bit puzzled why __GFP_HARDWALL was chosen in the first
> > place.
> 
> I suspect because "GFP_USER" felt like the appropriate thing to do.

Looking back at when the whole contiguous allocator patchset was posted,
it seems that it kinda copied what memory-offline code was doing, which
was migrating pages with GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE (hotremove_migrate_alloc()).

Then, the HIGHMEM modifier was dropped due to HIGHMEM restrictions on
some systems, ending up with GFP_USER.


-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs