Re comments about infinite retry: gotcha, makes sense to me.
On Tue, 2022-09-27 at 09:45 +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On 9/26/22 14:35, Lyude Paul wrote:
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < npages; i++) {
> > > > + if (src_pfns[i] & MIGRATE_PFN_MIGRATE) {
> > > > + struct page *dpage;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * _GFP_NOFAIL because the GPU is going away and there
> > > > + * is nothing sensible we can do if we can't copy the
> > > > + * data back.
> > > > + */
> > >
> > > You'll have to excuse me for a moment since this area of nouveau isn't one of
> > > my strongpoints, but are we sure about this? IIRC __GFP_NOFAIL means infinite
> > > retry, in the case of a GPU hotplug event I would assume we would rather just
> > > stop trying to migrate things to the GPU and just drop the data instead of
> > > hanging on infinite retries.
> > >
>
> No problem, thanks for taking a look!
>
> > Hi Lyude!
> >
> > Actually, I really think it's better in this case to keep trying
> > (presumably not necessarily infinitely, but only until memory becomes
> > available), rather than failing out and corrupting data.
> >
> > That's because I'm not sure it's completely clear that this memory is
> > discardable. And at some point, we're going to make this all work with
> > file-backed memory, which will *definitely* not be discardable--I
> > realize that we're not there yet, of course.
> >
> > But here, it's reasonable to commit to just retrying indefinitely,
> > really. Memory should eventually show up. And if it doesn't, then
> > restarting the machine is better than corrupting data, generally.
>
> The memory is definitely not discardable here if the migration failed
> because that implies it is still mapped into some userspace process.
>
> We could avoid restarting the machine by doing something similar to what
> happens during memory failure and killing every process that maps the
> page(s). But overall I think it's better to retry until memory is
> available, because that allows things like reclaim to work and in the
> worst case allows the OOM killer to select an appropriate task to kill.
> It also won't cause data corruption if/when we have file-backed memory.
>
> > thanks,
>
--
Cheers,
Lyude Paul (she/her)
Software Engineer at Red Hat
