From: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@gmail.com>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>,
Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" <vbabka@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-next:master] [mm] 0fa2857d23: WARNING:at_mm/page_alloc.c:#__alloc_pages_noprof
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:05:29 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <159061bc-27b5-4127-a85d-223bed0ddfd5@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <167b2f11-a013-440f-b196-5d8c0ea5d9b3@gmail.com>
On 24/06/2024 21:26, Usama Arif wrote:
>
> On 24/06/2024 20:31, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:26 AM Usama Arif <usamaarif642@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24/06/2024 19:56, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> - p->zeromap = bitmap_zalloc(maxpages, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>>> + p->zeromap = kvzalloc(DIV_ROUND_UP(maxpages, 8),
>>>>>>> GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>> No, 8 is not right for 32-bit kernels. I think you want
>>>>>> p->zeromap = kvzalloc(BITS_TO_LONGS(maxpages), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>> but please check it carefully, I'm easily confused by such
>>>>>> conversions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hugh
>>>>> Ah yes, didnt take into account 32-bit kernel. I think its
>>>>> supposed to be
>>>>>
>>>>> p->zeromap = kvzalloc(BITS_TO_LONGS(maxpages) *
>>>>> sizeof(unsigned long),
>>>>> GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> You can do something similar to bitmap_zalloc() and use:
>>>>
>>>> kvmalloc_array(BITS_TO_LONGS(nbits), sizeof(unsigned long), GFP_KERNEL
>>>> | __GFP_ZERO)
>>>>
>>>> I don't see a kvzalloc_array() variant to use directly, but it should
>>>> be trivial to add it. I can see other users of kvmalloc_array() that
>>>> pass in __GFP_ZERO (e.g. fs/ntfs3/bitmap.c).
>>>>
>>>> , or you could take it a step further and add bitmap_kvzalloc(),
>>>> assuming the maintainers are open to that.
>>> Thanks! bitmap_kvzalloc makes most sense to me. It doesnt make sense
>>> that bitmap should only be limited to MAX_PAGE_ORDER size. I can add
>>> this patch below at the start of the series and use it in the patch for
>>> zeropage swap optimization.
>>>
>>>
>>> bitmap: add support for virtually contiguous bitmap
>>>
>>> The current bitmap_zalloc API limits the allocation to
>>> MAX_PAGE_ORDER,
>>> which prevents larger order bitmap allocations. Introduce
>>> bitmap_kvzalloc that will allow larger allocations of bitmap.
>>> kvmalloc_array still attempts to allocate physically
>>> contiguous memory,
>>> but upon failure, falls back to non-contiguous (vmalloc)
>>> allocation.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@gmail.com>
>>>
>> LGTM with a small fix below.
>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/bitmap.h b/include/linux/bitmap.h
>>> index 8c4768c44a01..881c2ff2e834 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/bitmap.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/bitmap.h
>>> @@ -131,9 +131,11 @@ struct device;
>>> */
>>> unsigned long *bitmap_alloc(unsigned int nbits, gfp_t flags);
>>> unsigned long *bitmap_zalloc(unsigned int nbits, gfp_t flags);
>>> +unsigned long *bitmap_kvzalloc(unsigned int nbits, gfp_t flags);
>>> unsigned long *bitmap_alloc_node(unsigned int nbits, gfp_t flags,
>>> int
>>> node);
>>> unsigned long *bitmap_zalloc_node(unsigned int nbits, gfp_t
>>> flags, int
>>> node);
>>> void bitmap_free(const unsigned long *bitmap);
>>> +void bitmap_kvfree(const unsigned long *bitmap);
>>>
>>> DEFINE_FREE(bitmap, unsigned long *, if (_T) bitmap_free(_T))
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/bitmap.c b/lib/bitmap.c
>>> index b97692854966..eabbfb85fb45 100644
>>> --- a/lib/bitmap.c
>>> +++ b/lib/bitmap.c
>>> @@ -727,6 +727,13 @@ unsigned long *bitmap_zalloc(unsigned int nbits,
>>> gfp_t flags)
>>> }
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(bitmap_zalloc);
>>>
>>> +unsigned long *bitmap_kvzalloc(unsigned int nbits, gfp_t flags)
>>> +{
>>> + return kvmalloc_array(BITS_TO_LONGS(nbits), sizeof(unsigned
>>> long),
>>> + flags | __GFP_ZERO);
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(bitmap_zalloc);
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(bitmap_kvzalloc)*
>
>
> Actually, does it make more sense to change the behaviour of the
> current APIs like below instead of above patch? Or is there an
> expectation that the current bitmap API is supposed to work only on
> physically contiguous bits?
>
> I believe in the kernel if the allocation/free starts with 'k' its
> physically contiguous and with "kv" its physically contiguous if
> possible, otherwise virtually contiguous. The bitmap functions dont
> have either, so we could change the current implementation. I believe
> it would not impact the current users of the functions as the first
> attempt is physically contiguous which is how it works currently, and
> only upon failure it would be virtual and it would increase the use of
> current bitmap API to greater than MAX_PAGE_ORDER size allocations.
>
> Yury Norov and Rasmus Villemoes, any views on this?
>
> Thanks
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h
> index 7247e217e21b..ad771dc81afa 100644
> --- a/include/linux/slab.h
> +++ b/include/linux/slab.h
> @@ -804,6 +804,7 @@ kvmalloc_array_node_noprof(size_t n, size_t size,
> gfp_t flags, int node)
> #define kvcalloc_node_noprof(_n,_s,_f,_node)
> kvmalloc_array_node_noprof(_n,_s,(_f)|__GFP_ZERO,_node)
> #define kvcalloc_noprof(...) kvcalloc_node_noprof(__VA_ARGS__,
> NUMA_NO_NODE)
>
> +#define kvmalloc_array_node(...)
> alloc_hooks(kvmalloc_array_node_noprof(__VA_ARGS__))
> #define kvmalloc_array(...)
> alloc_hooks(kvmalloc_array_noprof(__VA_ARGS__))
> #define kvcalloc_node(...)
> alloc_hooks(kvcalloc_node_noprof(__VA_ARGS__))
> #define kvcalloc(...) alloc_hooks(kvcalloc_noprof(__VA_ARGS__))
> diff --git a/lib/bitmap.c b/lib/bitmap.c
> index b97692854966..272164dcbef1 100644
> --- a/lib/bitmap.c
> +++ b/lib/bitmap.c
> @@ -716,7 +716,7 @@ void bitmap_fold(unsigned long *dst, const
> unsigned long *orig,
>
> unsigned long *bitmap_alloc(unsigned int nbits, gfp_t flags)
> {
> - return kmalloc_array(BITS_TO_LONGS(nbits), sizeof(unsigned long),
> + return kvmalloc_array(BITS_TO_LONGS(nbits), sizeof(unsigned
> long),
> flags);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(bitmap_alloc);
> @@ -729,7 +729,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(bitmap_zalloc);
>
> unsigned long *bitmap_alloc_node(unsigned int nbits, gfp_t flags, int
> node)
> {
> - return kmalloc_array_node(BITS_TO_LONGS(nbits),
> sizeof(unsigned long),
> + return kvmalloc_array_node(BITS_TO_LONGS(nbits),
> sizeof(unsigned long),
> flags, node);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(bitmap_alloc_node);
> @@ -742,7 +742,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(bitmap_zalloc_node);
>
> void bitmap_free(const unsigned long *bitmap)
> {
> - kfree(bitmap);
> + kvfree(bitmap);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(bitmap_free);
>
I decided to go with just using simple kvmalloc_array for v7 [1] with
__GFP_ZERO instead of adding a new API to bitmap or changing the
existing API to kvmalloc/kvfree as I didnt want to make this series
dependent of bitmap API changes and there are other places where its
done using kvmalloc_array like ceph and ntfs3. I am happy to send a
follow up patch after this series that changes the existing API to be kv
if thats something the bitmap maintainers think makes sense.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240627105730.3110705-1-usamaarif642@gmail.com/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-27 11:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-24 8:49 [linux-next:master] [mm] 0fa2857d23: WARNING:at_mm/page_alloc.c:#__alloc_pages_noprof kernel test robot
2024-06-24 12:05 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-06-24 13:06 ` Usama Arif
2024-06-24 15:26 ` Hugh Dickins
2024-06-24 15:39 ` Usama Arif
2024-06-24 15:55 ` Hugh Dickins
2024-06-24 16:56 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-06-24 17:26 ` Usama Arif
2024-06-24 17:31 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-06-24 18:26 ` Usama Arif
2024-06-27 11:05 ` Usama Arif [this message]
2024-06-24 18:33 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-06-24 18:50 ` Usama Arif
2024-06-24 18:53 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-06-24 18:54 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-06-24 18:53 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-06-24 18:56 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-06-24 18:57 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-06-24 19:26 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-06-24 19:34 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-06-24 19:50 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-06-24 20:39 ` Shakeel Butt
2024-06-24 20:51 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-06-24 21:02 ` Shakeel Butt
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=159061bc-27b5-4127-a85d-223bed0ddfd5@gmail.com \
--to=usamaarif642@gmail.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=nphamcs@gmail.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=yosryahmed@google.com \
--cc=yury.norov@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).