on 8/2/2023 9:11 AM, Baolin Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 8/1/2023 8:33 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>
>>
>> on 8/1/2023 5:32 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/1/2023 4:42 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> on 8/1/2023 4:01 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/1/2023 2:08 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> on 8/1/2023 11:53 AM, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/1/2023 10:36 AM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on 8/1/2023 10:18 AM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> on 7/31/2023 8:01 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/29/2023 1:10 AM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> skip_offline_sections_reverse will return the last pfn in found online
>>>>>>>>>>> section. Then we set block_start_pfn to start of page block which
>>>>>>>>>>> contains the last pfn in section. Then we continue, move one page
>>>>>>>>>>> block forward and ignore the last page block in the online section.
>>>>>>>>>>> Make block_start_pfn point to first page block after online section to fix
>>>>>>>>>>> this:
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. make skip_offline_sections_reverse return end pfn of online section,
>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. pfn of page block after online section.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. assign block_start_pfn with next_pfn.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: f63224525309 ("mm: compaction: skip the memory hole rapidly when isolating free pages")
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> mm/compaction.c | 5 ++---
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index 9b7a0a69e19f..ce7841363b12 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/mm/compaction.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static unsigned long skip_offline_sections_reverse(unsigned long start_pfn)
>>>>>>>>>>> while (start_nr-- > 0) {
>>>>>>>>>>> if (online_section_nr(start_nr))
>>>>>>>>>>> - return section_nr_to_pfn(start_nr) + PAGES_PER_SECTION - 1;
>>>>>>>>>>> + return section_nr_to_pfn(start_nr + 1);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect, you returned the start pfn of this section.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1670,8 +1670,7 @@ static void isolate_freepages(struct compact_control *cc)
>>>>>>>>>>> next_pfn = skip_offline_sections_reverse(block_start_pfn);
>>>>>>>>>>> if (next_pfn)
>>>>>>>>>>> - block_start_pfn = max(pageblock_start_pfn(next_pfn),
>>>>>>>>>>> - low_pfn);
>>>>>>>>>>> + block_start_pfn = max(next_pfn, low_pfn);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 'block_start_pfn' should be pageblock aligned. If the 'next_pfn' is not pageblock-aligned (though this is not the common case), we should skip it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But if the 'next_pfn' is pageblock-aligned, yes, the commit f63224525309 still ignores the last pageblock, which is not right. So I think it should be:
>>>>>>>>>> block_start_pfn = pageblock_aligned(next_pfn) ? : pageblock_start_pfn(next_pfn);
>>>>>>>>>> block_start_pfn = max(block_start_pfn, low_pfn);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Baolin, thanks for reply! As skip_offline_sections_reverse is based
>>>>>>>>> on skip_offline_sections. I make the assumption that section is pageblock
>>>>>>>>> aligned based on that we use section start from skip_offline_sections as
>>>>>>>>> block_start_fpn without align check.
>>>>>>>>> If section size is not pageblock aligned in real world, the pageblock aligned
>>>>>>>>> check should be added to skip_offline_sections and skip_offline_sections_reverse.
>>>>>>>>> If no one is against this, I will fix this in next version. THanks!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More information of aligment of section. For powerpc arch, we have SECTION_SIZE_BITS
>>>>>>>> with 24 while PAGE_SHIFT could be configured to 18.
>>>>>>>> Pageblock order is (18 + MAX_ORDER) which coule be 28 and is > SECTION_SZIE_BITS 24,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The maximum pageblock order is MAX_ORDER. But after thinking more, I think return the start pfn or end pfn of a section is okay, and it should be aligned to a pageblock order IIUC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, I mixed up the unit.
>>>>>>> So I think your change is good:
>>>>>>> + block_start_pfn = max(next_pfn, low_pfn);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But in skip_offline_sections_reverse(), we should still return the last pfn of the online section.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, then we should assign block_start_pfn with following change. Is this good to you?
>>>>>> - block_start_pfn = max(pageblock_start_pfn(next_pfn),
>>>>>> + block_start_pfn = max(pageblock_end_pfn(next_pfn),
>>>>>> low_pfn);
>>>>>
>>>>> The last pfn of a section is already section aligned, so I think no need to call pageblock_end_pfn(), just like your original change is okay to me.
>>>>> block_start_pfn = max(next_pfn, low_pfn);
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Um, if we keep "block_start_pfn = max(next_pfn, low_pfn);", should we also keep
>>>> returning end of section "section_nr_to_pfn(start_nr + 1);" instead of original last
>>>> pfn of the section "section_nr_to_pfn(start_nr) + PAGES_PER_SECTION - 1;" which seems
>>>> not aligned.
>>>> Assume SECTION_SIZE_BITS = 27, PAGE_SHIFT = 12, pageblock order = 10
>>>> Last pfn of the section 0 is 0x7fff, end pfn of section 0 is 0x8000. The last pfn
>>>> is not aligned.
>>>> Please tell me if I misunderstand anything. Thanks!
>>>
>>> Ah, you are right, sorry for my bad arithmetic. Maybe we should return the end pfn (section_nr_to_pfn(start_nr) + PAGES_PER_SECTION) of the section in skip_offline_sections_reverse() with adding some comments to explain the return value like David suggested. Then we can remove the pageblock_end_pfn() in isolate_freepages().
>>>
>>>
>> Sure, I will add comments in next version. As (section_nr_to_pfn(start_nr) + PAGES_PER_SECTION)
>> is = section_nr_to_pfn(start_nr + 1), I will keep the change to skip_offline_sections_reverse
>
> IMO, next section is confusing. We need return the end pfn of the current online section, and we usually get it by "section_nr_to_pfn(start_nr) + PAGES_PER_SECTION".
>
Thanks for the reply! I will do this in next version.
--
Best wishes
Kemeng Shi
