On 2020-09-01 at 21:41 Michal Hocko wrote:
>On Mon 31-08-20 14:44:40, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 8/30/20 7:04 AM, Li Xinhai wrote:
>> > Since commit cf11e85fc08cc6a4 ("mm: hugetlb: optionally allocate gigantic
>> > hugepages using cma"), the gigantic page would be allocated from node
>> > which is not the preferred node, although there are pages available from
>> > that node. The reason is that the nid parameter has been ignored in
>> > alloc_gigantic_page().
>> >
>> > After this patch, the preferred node is tried first before other allowed
>> > nodes.
>>
>> Thank you!
>> This is an issue that needs to be fixed.
>>
>> > Fixes: cf11e85fc08cc6a4 ("mm: hugetlb: optionally allocate gigantic hugepages using cma")
>> > Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
>> > Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Li Xinhai <lixinhai.lxh@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > mm/hugetlb.c | 9 ++++++++-
>> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> > index a301c2d672bf..4a28b8853d47 100644
>> > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>> > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> > @@ -1256,8 +1256,15 @@ static struct page *alloc_gigantic_page(struct hstate *h, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>> > struct page *page;
>> > int node;
>> >
>> > + if (hugetlb_cma[nid]) {
>> > + page = cma_alloc(hugetlb_cma[nid], nr_pages,
>> > + huge_page_order(h), true);
>> > + if (page)
>> > + return page;
>> > + }
>> > +
>>
>> When looking at your changes, I noticed that this code for allocation
>> from CMA does not take gfp_mask into account. The 'normal' use case
>> is to allocate pool pages with something similar to:
>>
>> echo 16 > /sys/kernel/mm/hugepages/hugepages-1048576kB/nr_hugepages
>>
>> The routine alloc_pool_huge_page will try to interleave pages among nodes:
>>
>> ...
>> gfp_t gfp_mask = htlb_alloc_mask(h) | __GFP_THISNODE;
>>
>> for_each_node_mask_to_alloc(h, nr_nodes, node, nodes_allowed) {
>> ...
>>
>> which will eventually call alloc_gigantic_page. If __GFP_THISNODE is
>> set we really do not want to execute the below for loop in alloc_gigantic_page.
>
>Yes, this is the case indeed.
>
>> I think the convention in the mm code is that only the lowest level
>> allocation routines should interpret the GFP flags. We may need to make
>> an exception here and check for __GFP_THISNODE.
>
>Yes this is true, But alloc_gigantic_page is actually low level
>allocation routine in fact.
>
Thanks for the review, we need to consider the __GFP_THISNODE flag.
>I would go with the following
>diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
>index a301c2d672bf..124754240b56 100644
>--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>@@ -1256,6 +1256,16 @@ static struct page *alloc_gigantic_page(struct hstate *h, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> struct page *page;
> int node;
>
>+ if (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE && hugetlb_cma[nid]) {
>+ page = cma_alloc(hugetlb_cma[nid], nr_pages,
>+ huge_page_order(h), true);
>+ if (page)
>+ return page;
>+ }
>+
>+ if (gfp_mask & __GFP_THISNODE)
>+ return NULL;
>+
I think in case of failed to allocate on THISNODE, it still needs to call below
alloc_contig_pages(), so we have one more chance to allcoate successfully
on the preferred node.
> for_each_node_mask(node, *nodemask) {
> if (!hugetlb_cma[node])
> continue;
>
>I do not think we actually do have an explicit NUMA_NO_NODE user but it
>is safer to not asume that here.
>--
>Michal Hocko
>SUSE Labs
