Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: Skip non present sections on zone initialization

David Hildenbrand
2020-01-10T14:48:54Z

On 10.01.20 15:47, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 03:34:49PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 10.01.20 14:45, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 02:15:26PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 08.01.20 15:40, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> On Mon 30-12-19 12:38:28, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>>>>> memmap_init_zone() can be called on the ranges with holes during the
>>>>>> boot. It will skip any non-valid PFNs one-by-one. It works fine as long
>>>>>> as holes are not too big.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But huge holes in the memory map causes a problem. It takes over 20
>>>>>> seconds to walk 32TiB hole. x86-64 with 5-level paging allows for much
>>>>>> larger holes in the memory map which would practically hang the system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deferred struct page init doesn't help here. It only works on the
>>>>>> present ranges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skipping non-present sections would fix the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes sense to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> That pfn inc back and forth is quite ugly TBH but whatever.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, can we please rewrite the loop to fix that?
>>>
>>> Any suggestions?
>>>
>>> I don't see an obvious way to not break readablity in another place.
>>>
>>
>> I'd probably do it like this (applied some other tweaks, untested)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index cb766aac6772..a96b1ad1d74b 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -5859,6 +5859,22 @@ overlap_memmap_init(unsigned long zone, unsigned long *pfn)
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline __meminit unsigned long next_present_pfn(unsigned long pfn)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
>
> I would rather keep it around function, but it's matter of taste.

Yes

>
>> + unsigned long section_nr = pfn_to_section_nr(pfn + 1);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Note: We don't check the subsection bitmap, so this can produce
>> + * false positives when only subsections are present/valid. The
>> + * caller should recheck if the returned pfn is valid.
>> + */
>> + if (!present_section_nr(section_nr))
>> + return section_nr_to_pfn(next_present_section_nr(section_nr));
>
> This won't compile. next_present_section_nr() is static to mm/sparse.c.

We should then move that to the header IMHO.

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb