Wei Wang wrote:
> On 11/03/2017 07:25 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> @@ -184,8 +307,12 @@ static unsigned fill_balloon(struct virtio_balloon *vb, size_t num)
> >>
> >> num_allocated_pages = vb->num_pfns;
> >> /* Did we get any? */
> >> - if (vb->num_pfns != 0)
> >> - tell_host(vb, vb->inflate_vq);
> >> + if (vb->num_pfns) {
> >> + if (use_sg)
> >> + tell_host_sgs(vb, vb->inflate_vq, pfn_min, pfn_max);
> > Please describe why tell_host_sgs() can work without __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM allocation,
> > for tell_host_sgs() is called with vb->balloon_lock mutex held.
>
> Essentially,
> tell_host_sgs()-->send_balloon_page_sg()-->add_one_sg()-->virtqueue_add_inbuf(
> , , num=1 ,,GFP_KERNEL)
> won't need any memory allocation, because we always add one sg (i.e.
> num=1) each time. That memory
> allocation option is only used when multiple sgs are added (i.e. num >
> 1) and the implementation inside virtqueue_add_inbuf
> need allocation of indirect descriptor table.
>
> We could also add some comments above the function to explain a little
> about this if necessary.
Yes, please do so.
Or maybe replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_NOWAIT or 0. Though Michael might remove that GFP
argument ( http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201710022344.JII17368.HQtLOMJOOSFFVF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ).
> > If this is inside vb->balloon_lock mutex (isn't this?), xb_set_page() must not
> > use __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM allocation, for leak_balloon_sg_oom() will be blocked
> > on vb->balloon_lock mutex.
>
> OK. Since the preload() doesn't need too much memory (< 4K in total),
> how about GFP_NOWAIT here?
Maybe GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN ?
