Message-ID: <5983130E.2070806@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2017 20:11:58 +0800
From: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, mst@redhat.com, mawilcox@microsoft.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org,
        david@redhat.com, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com,
        mgorman@techsingularity.net, aarcange@redhat.com, amit.shah@redhat.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, liliang.opensource@gmail.com,
        yang.zhang.wz@gmail.com, quan.xu@aliyun.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 4/5] mm: support reporting free page blocks
References: <1501742299-4369-1-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@intel.com> <1501742299-4369-5-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@intel.com> <20170803091151.GF12521@dhcp22.suse.cz> <5982FE07.3040207@intel.com> <20170803104417.GI12521@dhcp22.suse.cz> <59830897.2060203@intel.com> <20170803112831.GN12521@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20170803112831.GN12521@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3246
Lines: 93

On 08/03/2017 07:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 03-08-17 19:27:19, Wei Wang wrote:
>> On 08/03/2017 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 03-08-17 18:42:15, Wei Wang wrote:
>>>> On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>> +static int report_free_page_block(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order,
>>>>>> +				  unsigned int migratetype, struct page **page)
>>>>> This is just too ugly and wrong actually. Never provide struct page
>>>>> pointers outside of the zone->lock. What I've had in mind was to simply
>>>>> walk free lists of the suitable order and call the callback for each one.
>>>>> Something as simple as
>>>>>
>>>>> 	for (i = 0; i < MAX_NR_ZONES; i++) {
>>>>> 		struct zone *zone = &pgdat->node_zones[i];
>>>>>
>>>>> 		if (!populated_zone(zone))
>>>>> 			continue;
>>>>> 		spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
>>>>> 		for (order = min_order; order < MAX_ORDER; ++order) {
>>>>> 			struct free_area *free_area = &zone->free_area[order];
>>>>> 			enum migratetype mt;
>>>>> 			struct page *page;
>>>>>
>>>>> 			if (!free_area->nr_pages)
>>>>> 				continue;
>>>>>
>>>>> 			for_each_migratetype_order(order, mt) {
>>>>> 				list_for_each_entry(page,
>>>>> 						&free_area->free_list[mt], lru) {
>>>>>
>>>>> 					pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
>>>>> 					visit(opaque2, prn, 1<<order);
>>>>> 				}
>>>>> 			}
>>>>> 		}
>>>>>
>>>>> 		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
>>>>> 	}
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>> I think the above would take the lock for too long time. That's why we
>>>> prefer to take one free page block each time, and taking it one by one
>>>> also doesn't make a difference, in terms of the performance that we
>>>> need.
>>> I think you should start with simple approach and impove incrementally
>>> if this turns out to be not optimal. I really detest taking struct pages
>>> outside of the lock. You never know what might happen after the lock is
>>> dropped. E.g. can you race with the memory hotremove?
>>
>> The caller won't use pages returned from the function, so I think there
>> shouldn't be an issue or race if the returned pages are used (i.e. not free
>> anymore) or simply gone due to hotremove.
> No, this is just too error prone. Consider that struct page pointer
> itself could get invalid in the meantime. Please always keep robustness
> in mind first. Optimizations are nice but it is even not clear whether
> the simple variant will cause any problems.


how about this:

for_each_populated_zone(zone) {
               for_each_migratetype_order_decend(min_order, order, type) {
                     do {
      =>                  spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
                         ret = report_free_page_block(zone, order, type,
                              &page)) {
                                pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
                                nr_pages = 1 << order;
                                visit(opaque1, pfn, nr_pages);
                          }
      => spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
                     } while (!ret)
}

In this way, we can still keep the lock granularity at one free page block
while having the struct page operated under the lock.


Best,
Wei