Re: [PATCH v9 0/8] stg mail -e --version=v9 \

Michal Hocko
2019-09-11T12:55:01Z

On Wed 11-09-19 14:42:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 11.09.19 14:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 11-09-19 14:19:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Wed 11-09-19 08:08:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 01:36:19PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>> On Tue 10-09-19 14:23:40, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>> We don't put any limitations on the allocator other then that it needs to
> >>>>> clean up the metadata on allocation, and that it cannot allocate a page
> >>>>> that is in the process of being reported since we pulled it from the
> >>>>> free_list. If the page is a "Reported" page then it decrements the
> >>>>> reported_pages count for the free_area and makes sure the page doesn't
> >>>>> exist in the "Boundary" array pointer value, if it does it moves the
> >>>>> "Boundary" since it is pulling the page.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is still a non-trivial limitation on the page allocation from an
> >>>> external code IMHO. I cannot give any explicit reason why an ordering on
> >>>> the free list might matter (well except for page shuffling which uses it
> >>>> to make physical memory pattern allocation more random) but the
> >>>> architecture seems hacky and dubious to be honest. It shoulds like the
> >>>> whole interface has been developed around a very particular and single
> >>>> purpose optimization.
> >>>>
> >>>> I remember that there was an attempt to report free memory that provided
> >>>> a callback mechanism [1], which was much less intrusive to the internals
> >>>> of the allocator yet it should provide a similar functionality. Did you
> >>>> see that approach? How does this compares to it? Or am I completely off
> >>>> when comparing them?
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] mostly likely not the latest version of the patchset
> >>>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1502940416-42944-5-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@intel.com
> >>>
> >>> Linus nacked that one. He thinks invoking callbacks with lots of
> >>> internal mm locks is too fragile.
> >>
> >> I would be really curious how much he would be happy about injecting
> >> other restrictions on the allocator like this patch proposes. This is
> >> more intrusive as it has a higher maintenance cost longterm IMHO.
> >
> > Btw. I do agree that callbacks with internal mm locks are not great
> > either. We do have a model for that in mmu_notifiers and it is something
> > I do consider PITA, on the other hand it is mostly sleepable part of the
> > interface which makes it the real pain. The above callback mechanism was
> > explicitly documented with restrictions and that the context is
> > essentially atomic with no access to particular struct pages and no
> > expensive operations possible. So in the end I've considered it
> > acceptably painful. Not that I want to override Linus' nack but if
> > virtualization usecases really require some form of reporting and no
> > other way to do that push people to invent even more interesting
> > approaches then we should simply give them/you something reasonable
> > and least intrusive to our internals.
> >
>
> The issue with "[PATCH v14 4/5] mm: support reporting free page blocks"
> is that it cannot really handle the use case we have here if I am not
> wrong. While a page is getting processed by the hypervisor (e.g.
> MADV_DONTNEED), it must not get reused.

What prevents to use the callback to get a list of pfn ranges to work on
and then use something like start_isolate_page_range on the collected
pfn ranges to make sure nobody steals pages from under your feet, do
your thing and drop the isolated state afterwards.

I am saying somethig like because you wouldn't really want a generic
has_unmovable_pages but rather
if (!page_ref_count(page)) {
if (PageBuddy(page))
iter += (1 << page_order(page)) - 1;
continue;
}
subset of it.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs