On 2022/7/5 14:39, HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 10:16:39AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2022/7/4 9:33, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>>> From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> I found a weird state of 1GB hugepage pool, caused by the following
>>> procedure:
>>>
>>> - run a process reserving all free 1GB hugepages,
>>> - shrink free 1GB hugepage pool to zero (i.e. writing 0 to
>>> /sys/kernel/mm/hugepages/hugepages-1048576kB/nr_hugepages), then
>>> - kill the reserving process.
>>>
>>> , then all the hugepages are free *and* surplus at the same time.
>>>
>>> $ cat /sys/kernel/mm/hugepages/hugepages-1048576kB/nr_hugepages
>>> 3
>>> $ cat /sys/kernel/mm/hugepages/hugepages-1048576kB/free_hugepages
>>> 3
>>> $ cat /sys/kernel/mm/hugepages/hugepages-1048576kB/resv_hugepages
>>> 0
>>> $ cat /sys/kernel/mm/hugepages/hugepages-1048576kB/surplus_hugepages
>>> 3
>>>
>>> This state is resolved by reserving and allocating the pages then
>>> freeing them again, so this seems not to result in serious problem.
>>> But it's a little surprising (shrinking pool suddenly fails).
>>>
>>> This behavior is caused by hstate_is_gigantic() check in
>>> return_unused_surplus_pages(). This was introduced so long ago in 2008
>>> by commit aa888a74977a ("hugetlb: support larger than MAX_ORDER"), and
>>> at that time the gigantic pages were not supposed to be allocated/freed
>>> at run-time. Now kernel can support runtime allocation/free, so let's
>>> check gigantic_page_runtime_supported() together.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> This patch looks good to me with a few question below.
>
> Thank you for reviewing.
>
>>
>>> ---
>>> v2 -> v3:
>>> - Fixed typo in patch description,
>>> - add !gigantic_page_runtime_supported() check instead of removing
>>> hstate_is_gigantic() check (suggested by Miaohe and Muchun)
>>> - add a few more !gigantic_page_runtime_supported() check in
>>> set_max_huge_pages() (by Mike).
>>> ---
>>> mm/hugetlb.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
>>> index 2a554f006255..bdc4499f324b 100644
>>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>>> @@ -2432,8 +2432,7 @@ static void return_unused_surplus_pages(struct hstate *h,
>>> /* Uncommit the reservation */
>>> h->resv_huge_pages -= unused_resv_pages;
>>>
>>> - /* Cannot return gigantic pages currently */
>>> - if (hstate_is_gigantic(h))
>>> + if (hstate_is_gigantic(h) && !gigantic_page_runtime_supported())
>>> goto out;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> @@ -3315,7 +3314,8 @@ static int set_max_huge_pages(struct hstate *h, unsigned long count, int nid,
>>> * the user tries to allocate gigantic pages but let the user free the
>>> * boottime allocated gigantic pages.
>>> */
>>> - if (hstate_is_gigantic(h) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CONTIG_ALLOC)) {
>>> + if (hstate_is_gigantic(h) && (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CONTIG_ALLOC) ||
>>> + !gigantic_page_runtime_supported())) {
>>> if (count > persistent_huge_pages(h)) {
>>> spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>>> mutex_unlock(&h->resize_lock);
>>> @@ -3363,6 +3363,19 @@ static int set_max_huge_pages(struct hstate *h, unsigned long count, int nid,
>>> goto out;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * We can not decrease gigantic pool size if runtime modification
>>> + * is not supported.
>>> + */
>>> + if (hstate_is_gigantic(h) && !gigantic_page_runtime_supported()) {
>>> + if (count < persistent_huge_pages(h)) {
>>> + spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>>> + mutex_unlock(&h->resize_lock);
>>> + NODEMASK_FREE(node_alloc_noretry);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>
>> With above change, we're not allowed to decrease the pool size now. But it was allowed previously
>> even if !gigantic_page_runtime_supported. Does this will break user?
>
> Yes, it does. I might get the wrong idea about the definition of
> gigantic_page_runtime_supported(), which shows that runtime pool *extension*
> is supported or not (implying that pool shrinking is always possible).
> If this is right, this new if-block is not necessary.
I tend to remove above new if-block to keep pool shrinking available.
Thanks.
>
>>
>> And it seems it's not allowed to adjust the max_huge_pages now if !gigantic_page_runtime_supported
>> for gigantic huge page. Should we just return for such case as there should be nothing to do now?
>> Or am I miss something?
>
> If pool shrinking is always allowed, we need uptdate max_huge_pages so,
> the above if-block should have "goto out;", but it will be removed anyway
> so we don't have to care for it.
>
> Thank you for the valuable comment.
>
> - Naoya Horiguchi
>
