On 09/07/23 14:19, Muchun Song wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 2023, at 05:38, Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 09/06/23 15:38, Muchun Song wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2023/9/6 05:44, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >>> Now that batching of hugetlb vmemmap optimization processing is possible,
> >>> batch the freeing of vmemmap pages. When freeing vmemmap pages for a
> >>> hugetlb page, we add them to a list that is freed after the entire batch
> >>> has been processed.
> >>>
> >>> This enhances the ability to return contiguous ranges of memory to the
> >>> low level allocators.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> mm/hugetlb_vmemmap.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> >>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb_vmemmap.c b/mm/hugetlb_vmemmap.c
> >>> index 79de984919ef..a715712df831 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/hugetlb_vmemmap.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb_vmemmap.c
> >>> @@ -306,18 +306,21 @@ static void vmemmap_restore_pte(pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr,
> >>> * @end: end address of the vmemmap virtual address range that we want to
> >>> * remap.
> >>> * @reuse: reuse address.
> >>> + * @vmemmap_pages: list to deposit vmemmap pages to be freed. It is callers
> >>> + * responsibility to free pages.
> >>> *
> >>> * Return: %0 on success, negative error code otherwise.
> >>> */
> >>> static int vmemmap_remap_free(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> >>> - unsigned long reuse)
> >>> + unsigned long reuse,
> >>> + struct list_head *vmemmap_pages)
> >>> {
> >>> int ret;
> >>> - LIST_HEAD(vmemmap_pages);
> >>> + LIST_HEAD(freed_pages);
> >>
> >> IIUC, we could reuse the parameter of @vmemmap_pages directly instead of
> >> a temporary variable, could it be dropped?
> >>
> >
> > I was concerned about the error case where we call vmemmap_remap_range a
> > second time. In the first call to vmemmap_remap_range with vmemmap_remap_pte,
> > vmemmap pages to be freed are added to the end of the list (list_add_tail).
> > In the call to vmemmap_remap_range after error with vmemmap_restore_pte,
> > pages are taken off the head of the list (list_first_entry). So, it seems
> > that it would be possible to use a different set of pages in the restore
>
> Yes.
>
> > operation. This would be an issue if pages had different characteristics such
> > as being on different nodes. Is that a real concern?
>
> A good point. Now I see your concern, it is better to keep the same node
> as before when error occurs.
>
> >
> > I suppose we could change vmemmap_remap_pte to add pages to the head of
> > the list? I do not recall the reasoning behind adding to tail.
>
> I think we could do this, the code will be a little simple. Actually, there
> is no reason behind adding to tail (BTW, the first commit is introduced by
> me, no secret here :-)).
Ok, I will change the way pages are added and removed from the list so
that in case of error we get the same pages. Then I can remove the
local list.
--
Mike Kravetz
