Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen/mm: limit non-scrubbed allocations to a specific order

["Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 11:56:16AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.01.2026 11:48, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 09:48:59AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 13.01.2026 15:01, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 12:19:26PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 08.01.2026 18:55, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >>>>> --- a/xen/common/memory.c
> >>>>> +++ b/xen/common/memory.c
> >>>>> @@ -279,6 +279,18 @@ static void populate_physmap(struct memop_args *a)
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>                  if ( unlikely(!page) )
> >>>>>                  {
> >>>>> +                    nodeid_t node = MEMF_get_node(a->memflags);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +                    if ( memory_scrub_pending(node) ||
> >>>>> +                         (node != NUMA_NO_NODE &&
> >>>>> +                          !(a->memflags & MEMF_exact_node) &&
> >>>>> +                          memory_scrub_pending(node = NUMA_NO_NODE)) )
> >>>>> +                    {
> >>>>> +                        scrub_free_pages(node);
> >>>>> +                        a->preempted = 1;
> >>>>> +                        goto out;
> >>>>> +                    }
> >>>>
> >>>> At least for order 0 requests there's no point in trying this. With the
> >>>> current logic, actually for orders up to MAX_DIRTY_ORDER.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, otherwise we might force the CPU to do some scrubbing work when
> >>> it won't satisfy it's allocation request anyway.
> >>>
> >>>> Further, from a general interface perspective, wouldn't we need to do the
> >>>> same for at least XENMEM_increase_reservation?
> >>>
> >>> Possibly yes.  TBH I would also be fine with strictly limiting
> >>> XENMEM_increase_reservation to 2M order extents, even for the control
> >>> domain.  The physmap population is the only that actually requires
> >>> bigger extents.
> >>
> >> Hmm, that's an option, yes, but an ABI-changing one.
> > 
> > I don't think it changes the ABI: Xen has always reserved the right to
> > block high order allocations.  See for example how max_order() has
> > different limits depending on the domain permissions, and I would not
> > consider those limits part of the ABI, they can be changed from the
> > command line.
> 
> When the limits were introduced, we were aware this is an ABI change, albeit
> a necessary one. You have a point however as to the command line control that
> there now is.

In addition to what I've said above: the limit that I've introduced in
v2 only affects dirty allocations that require scrubbing.  If the
requested order is available and scrubbed the limit won't be enforced.
So the ABI is not changed in that regard, only unscrubbed pages past
a certain order are considered as not free.

It's possibly best to move the conversation to the v2 proposal and
discuss the limit there.

Thanks, Roger.