On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 03:56:46PM +0100, Lucas Stach wrote: > Am Montag, den 21.03.2016, 13:42 +0900 schrieb Joonsoo Kim: > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 02:32:35PM +0100, Lucas Stach wrote: > > > Hi Vlastimil, Joonsoo, > > > > > > Am Freitag, den 18.03.2016, 00:52 +0900 schrieb Joonsoo Kim: > > > > 2016-03-18 0:43 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>: > > > > > On 03/17/2016 10:24 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> On 2016/3/17 14:54, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 05:44:28PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On 2016/3/14 15:18, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 08:06:16AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On 03/14/2016 07:49 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 06:07:40PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 03/11/2016 04:00 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> How about something like this? Just and idea, probably buggy > > > > >>>>>>>> (off-by-one etc.). > > > > >>>>>>>> Should keep away cost from <pageblock_order iterations at the > > > > >>>>>>>> expense of the > > > > >>>>>>>> relatively fewer >pageblock_order iterations. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Hmm... I tested this and found that it's code size is a little bit > > > > >>>>>>> larger than mine. I'm not sure why this happens exactly but I guess > > > > >>>>>>> it would be > > > > >>>>>>> related to compiler optimization. In this case, I'm in favor of my > > > > >>>>>>> implementation because it looks like well abstraction. It adds one > > > > >>>>>>> unlikely branch to the merge loop but compiler would optimize it to > > > > >>>>>>> check it once. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> I would be surprised if compiler optimized that to check it once, as > > > > >>>>>> order increases with each loop iteration. But maybe it's smart > > > > >>>>>> enough to do something like I did by hand? Guess I'll check the > > > > >>>>>> disassembly. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Okay. I used following slightly optimized version and I need to > > > > >>>>> add 'max_order = min_t(unsigned int, MAX_ORDER, pageblock_order + 1)' > > > > >>>>> to yours. Please consider it, too. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Hmm, this one is not work, I still can see the bug is there after > > > > >>>> applying > > > > >>>> this patch, did I miss something? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I may find that there is a bug which was introduced by me some time > > > > >>> ago. Could you test following change in __free_one_page() on top of > > > > >>> Vlastimil's patch? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -page_idx = pfn & ((1 << max_order) - 1); > > > > >>> +page_idx = pfn & ((1 << MAX_ORDER) - 1); > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> I tested Vlastimil's patch + your change with stress for more than half > > > > >> hour, the bug > > > > >> I reported is gone :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, ok, will try to send proper patch, once I figure out what to write in > > > > > the changelog :) > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > > > After digging into the "PFN busy" race in CMA (see [1]), I believe we > > > should just prevent any buddy merging in isolated ranges. This fixes the > > > race I'm seeing without the need to hold the zone lock for extend > > > periods of time. > > > > "PFNs busy" can be caused by other type of race, too. I guess that > > other cases happens more than buddy merging. Do you have any test case for > > your problem? > > > I don't have any specific test case, but the etnaviv driver manages to > hit this race quite often. That's because we allocate/free a large > number of relatively small buffer from CMA, where allocation and free > regularly happen on different CPUs. > > So while we also have cases where the "PFN busy" is triggered by other > factors, like pages locked for get_user_pages(), this race is the number > one source of CMA retries in my workload. > > > If it is indeed a problem, you can avoid it with simple retry > > MAX_ORDER times on alloc_contig_range(). This is a rather dirty but > > the reason I suggest it is that there are other type of race in > > __alloc_contig_range() and retry could help them, too. For example, > > if some of pages in the requested range isn't attached to the LRU yet > > or detached from the LRU but not freed to buddy, > > test_pages_isolated() can be failed. > > While a retry makes sense (if at all just to avoid a CMA allocation > failure under CMA pressure), I would like to avoid the associated > overhead for the common path where CMA is just racing with itself. The > retry should only be needed in situations where we don't have any means > to control the race, like a concurrent GUP. Make sense. When I tried to fix merging issue previously, I worried about side-effect of unmerged buddy so I tried to reduce unmerged buddy as much as possible. But, your problem can be solved by implementation that makes unmerged buddy in isolated pageblock and it is a real problem. I think that now we can bear uncertain side-effect of unmerged buddy for solving real problem. Please make a patch and send to the list. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>