Re: [PATCH] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem - v2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 04:28:09PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 07:18:31PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Kukjin reported oops happen while he change min_free_kbytes
> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg92894.html
> > It happen by memory map on sparsemem.
> > 
> 
> First off, thanks for working on this.
> 
> > The system has a memory map following as. 
> >      section 0             section 1              section 2
> > 0x20000000-0x25000000, 0x40000000-0x50000000, 0x50000000-0x58000000
> > SECTION_SIZE_BITS 28(256M)
> > 
> > It means section 0 is an incompletely filled section.
> > Nontheless, current pfn_valid of sparsemem checks pfn loosely. 
> > It checks only mem_section's validation but ARM can free mem_map on hole 
> > to save memory space. So in above case, pfn on 0x25000000 can pass pfn_valid's 
> > validation check. It's not what we want. 
> > 
> > We can match section size to smallest valid size.(ex, above case, 16M)
> > But Russell doesn't like it due to mem_section's memory overhead with different
> > configuration(ex, 512K section).
> > 
> > I tried to add valid pfn range in mem_section but everyone doesn't like it 
> > due to size overhead.
> 
> Also IIRC, it was vunerable to a hole being punched in the middle of the
> section.
> 
> > This patch is suggested by KAMEZAWA-san. 
> > I just fixed compile error and change some naming. 
> > 
> > This patch registers address of mem_section to memmap itself's page struct's
> > pg->private field. This means the page is used for memmap of the section.
> > Otherwise, the page is used for other purpose and memmap has a hole.
> > 
> > This patch is based on mmotm-2010-07-01-12-19.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reported-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/mm/init.c     |    9 ++++++++-
> >  include/linux/mmzone.h |   21 ++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  mm/Kconfig             |    5 +++++
> >  mm/sparse.c            |   41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  4 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/init.c b/arch/arm/mm/init.c
> > index cfe4c5e..4586f40 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mm/init.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/init.c
> > @@ -234,6 +234,11 @@ static void __init arm_bootmem_free(struct meminfo *mi)
> >  	arch_adjust_zones(zone_size, zhole_size);
> >  
> >  	free_area_init_node(0, zone_size, min, zhole_size);
> > +
> > +	for_each_bank(i, mi) {
> > +		mark_memmap_hole(bank_pfn_start(&mi->bank[i]),
> > +				bank_pfn_end(&mi->bank[i]), true);
> > +	}
> >  }
> 
> Why do we need to mark banks both valid and invalid? Is it not enough to
> just mark the holes in free_memmap() and assume it is valid otherwise?
> 
Good point. 
If we can make sure pg->private is zero, we can fix it. 
I will check it. 

> >  
> >  #ifndef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
> > @@ -386,8 +391,10 @@ free_memmap(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
> >  	 * If there are free pages between these,
> >  	 * free the section of the memmap array.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (pg < pgend)
> > +	if (pg < pgend) {
> > +		mark_memmap_hole(pg >> PAGE_SHIFT, pgend >> PAGE_SHIFT, false);
> >  		free_bootmem(pg, pgend - pg);
> > +	}
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > index 9ed9c45..2ed9728 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/seqlock.h>
> >  #include <linux/nodemask.h>
> >  #include <linux/pageblock-flags.h>
> > +#include <linux/mm_types.h>
> >  #include <generated/bounds.h>
> >  #include <asm/atomic.h>
> >  #include <asm/page.h>
> > @@ -1047,11 +1048,29 @@ static inline struct mem_section *__pfn_to_section(unsigned long pfn)
> >  	return __nr_to_section(pfn_to_section_nr(pfn));
> >  }
> >  
> > +void mark_memmap_hole(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, bool valid);
> > +
> 
> The naming is confusing with the "valid" parameter.
> 
> What's a "valid hole"? I can see that one being a cause of head
> scratching in the future :)

Okay. If we call it in only free_memmap, we can change naming following as. 
ex) mark_invalid_memmap(start, end);
Will change. 

> 
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_HAS_HOLE
> 
> Why not use CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL ?

As I mentioned my previous mail(reply of Hannes), if the problen can happen
in FLATMEM, CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL is right.
Please confirm this, Mel. :)

> 
> > +static inline int page_valid(struct mem_section *ms, unsigned long pfn)
> > +{
> > +	struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> > +	struct page *__pg = virt_to_page(page);
> > +	return __pg->private == (unsigned long)ms;
> > +}
> > +#else
> > +static inline int page_valid(struct mem_section *ms, unsigned long pfn)
> > +{
> > +	return 1;
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  static inline int pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn)
> >  {
> > +	struct mem_section *ms;
> >  	if (pfn_to_section_nr(pfn) >= NR_MEM_SECTIONS)
> >  		return 0;
> > -	return valid_section(__nr_to_section(pfn_to_section_nr(pfn)));
> > +	ms = __nr_to_section(pfn_to_section_nr(pfn));
> > +	return valid_section(ms) && page_valid(ms, pfn);
> >  }
> 
> So it appears here that we unconditionally check page_valid() but we know
> which sections had holes in them at the time we called mark_memmap_hole(). Can
> the sections with holes be tagged so that only some sections need to call
> page_valid()? As it is, ARM will be taking a an performance hit just in case
> the section has holes but it should only need to take a performance hit
> on the corner case where a section is not fully populated.

In fact, I tried it with SECTION_MAP_LAST_BIT as you suggested. 
But stucked. That's because now we can use 2 bit of section_mem_map.
And we have used 2 bit all with different meaning. 
I have a dumb question. Is there any case section have SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT
but don't have SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP except section populated time?
I mean can't we remove SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT totally?
If it is, we can the 1 bit for marking hole section. 
If it isn't, I think it seems we can use lower bit of pageblock_flags.
although it's not a good. 

Thanks for careful review, Mel. 

> 
> >  
> >  static inline int pfn_present(unsigned long pfn)
> > diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig
> > index 527136b..959ac1d 100644
> > --- a/mm/Kconfig
> > +++ b/mm/Kconfig
> > @@ -128,6 +128,11 @@ config SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP
> >  	 pfn_to_page and page_to_pfn operations.  This is the most
> >  	 efficient option when sufficient kernel resources are available.
> >  
> > +config SPARSEMEM_HAS_HOLE
> > +	bool "allow holes in sparsemem's memmap"
> > +	depends on ARM && SPARSEMEM && !SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP
> > +	default n
> > +
> >  # eventually, we can have this option just 'select SPARSEMEM'
> >  config MEMORY_HOTPLUG
> >  	bool "Allow for memory hot-add"
> > diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
> > index 95ac219..76d5012 100644
> > --- a/mm/sparse.c
> > +++ b/mm/sparse.c
> > @@ -615,6 +615,47 @@ void __init sparse_init(void)
> >  	free_bootmem(__pa(usemap_map), size);
> >  }
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_HAS_HOLE
> > +/*
> > + * Fill memmap's pg->private with a pointer to mem_section.
> > + * pfn_valid() will check this later. (see include/linux/mmzone.h)
> > + * Evenry arch should call
> > + * 	mark_memmap_hole(start, end, true) # for all allocated mem_map
> > + * 	and, after that,
> > + * 	mark_memmap_hole(start, end, false) # for all holes in mem_map.
> > + * please see usage in ARM.
> > + */
> > +void mark_memmap_hole(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, bool valid)
> > +{
> > +	struct mem_section *ms;
> > +	unsigned long pos, next;
> > +	struct page *pg;
> > +	void *memmap, *mapend;
> > +
> > +	for (pos = start; pos < end; pos = next) {
> > +		next = (pos + PAGES_PER_SECTION) & PAGE_SECTION_MASK;
> > +		ms = __pfn_to_section(pos);
> > +		if (!valid_section(ms))
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		for (memmap = (void*)pfn_to_page(pos),
> > +			/* The last page in section */
> > +			mapend = pfn_to_page(next-1);
> > +			memmap < mapend; memmap += PAGE_SIZE) {
> > +			pg = virt_to_page(memmap);
> > +			if (valid)
> > +				pg->private = (unsigned long)ms;
> > +			else
> > +				pg->private = 0;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +#else
> > +void mark_memmap_hole(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, bool valid)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > +
> 
> The patch should also delete memmap_valid_within() and replace it with a
> call to pfn_valid_within(). The reason memmap_valid_within() existed was
> because sparsemem had holes punched in it but I'd rather not see use of
> that function grow.
> 
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP
> >  static inline struct page *kmalloc_section_memmap(unsigned long pnum, int nid,
> > -- 
> > 1.7.0.5
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Mel Gorman
> Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
> University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]