Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] alloc_tag: config to store page allocation tag refs in page flags

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 10:08 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri 18-10-24 09:04:24, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 6:03 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue 15-10-24 08:58:59, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 8:42 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > Right, I think what John is concerned about (and me as well) is that
> > > > > once a new feature really needs a page flag, there will be objection
> > > > > like "no you can't, we need them for allocation tags otherwise that
> > > > > feature will be degraded".
> > > >
> > > > I do understand your concern but IMHO the possibility of degrading a
> > > > feature should not be a reason to always operate at degraded capacity
> > > > (which is what we have today). If one is really concerned about
> > > > possible future regression they can set
> > > > CONFIG_PGALLOC_TAG_USE_PAGEFLAGS=n and keep what we have today. That's
> > > > why I'm strongly advocating that we do need
> > > > CONFIG_PGALLOC_TAG_USE_PAGEFLAGS so that the user has control over how
> > > > this scarce resource is used.
> > >
> > > I really do not think users will know how/why to setup this and I wouldn't
> > > even bother them thinking about that at all TBH.
> > >
> > > This is an implementation detail. It is fine to reuse unused flags space
> > > as a storage as a performance optimization but why do you want users to
> > > bother with that? Why would they ever want to say N here?
> >
> > In this patch you can find a couple of warnings that look like this:
> >
> > pr_warn("With module %s there are too many tags to fit in %d page flag
> > bits. Memory profiling is disabled!\n", mod->name,
> > NR_UNUSED_PAGEFLAG_BITS);
> > emitted when we run out of page flag bits during a module loading,
> >
> > pr_err("%s: alignment %lu is incompatible with allocation tag
> > indexing, disable CONFIG_PGALLOC_TAG_USE_PAGEFLAGS",  mod->name,
> > align);
> > emitted when the arch-specific section alignment is incompatible with
> > alloc_tag indexing.
>
> You are asking users to workaround implementation issue by configuration
> which sounds like a really bad idea. Why cannot you make the fallback
> automatic?

Automatic fallback is possible during boot, when we decide whether to
enable page extensions or not. So, if during boot we decide to disable
page extensions and use page flags, we can't go back and re-enable
page extensions after boot is complete. Since there is a possibility
that we run out of page flags at runtime when we load a new module,
this leaves this case when we can't reference the module tags and we
can't fall back to page extensions, so we have to disable memory
profiling.
I could keep page extensions always on just in case this happens but
that's a lot of memory waste to handle a rare case...

>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux