On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 11:56 AM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 04:25:15PM +0000, Frank van der Linden wrote:
> > The hugetlb_cma code passes 0 in the order_per_bit argument to
> > cma_declare_contiguous_nid (the alignment, computed using the
> > page order, is correctly passed in).
> >
> > This causes a bit in the cma allocation bitmap to always represent
> > a 4k page, making the bitmaps potentially very large, and slower.
> >
> > So, correctly pass in the order instead.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fvdl@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: cf11e85fc08c ("mm: hugetlb: optionally allocate gigantic hugepages using cma")
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> there is a comment just above your changes which explains why order_per_bit is 0.
> Is this not true anymore? If so, please, fix the comment too. Please, clarify.
>
> Thanks!
Hi Roman,
I'm assuming you're referring to this comment:
/*
* Note that 'order per bit' is based on smallest size that
* may be returned to CMA allocator in the case of
* huge page demotion.
*/
That comment was added in a01f43901cfb9 ("hugetlb: be sure to free
demoted CMA pages to CMA").
It talks about HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER being the minimum order being given
back to the CMA allocator (after hugetlb demotion), therefore
order_per_bit must be HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER. See the commit message for
that commit:
"Therefore, at region setup time we use HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER as the
smallest possible huge page size that can be given back to CMA."
But the commit, while correctly changing the alignment, left the
order_per_bit argument at 0, even though it clearly intended to set
it at HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER. The confusion may have been that
cma_declare_contiguous_nid has 9 arguments, several of which can be
left at 0 meaning 'use default', so it's easy to misread.
In other words, the comment was correct, but the code was not. After
this patch, comment and code match.
