Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 00/22] Intel(R) Resource Director Technology Cache
 Pseudo-Locking enabling
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        fenghua.yu@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com
Cc:     gavin.hindman@intel.com, vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com,
        dave.hansen@intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
References: <cover.1518443616.git.reinette.chatre@intel.com>
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <e0d59d83-14a1-6059-6f0b-da47b3b7de31@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Feb 2018 10:12:03 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cover.1518443616.git.reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 02/13/2018 07:46 AM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Adding MM maintainers to v2 to share the new MM change (patch 21/22) that
> enables large contiguous regions that was created to support large Cache
> Pseudo-Locked regions (patch 22/22). This week MM team received another
> proposal to support large contiguous allocations ("[RFC PATCH 0/3]
> Interface for higher order contiguous allocations" at
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180212222056.9735-1-mike.kravetz@oracle.com).
> I have not yet tested with this new proposal but it does seem appropriate
> and I should be able to rework patch 22 from this series on top of that if
> it is accepted instead of what I have in patch 21 of this series.
> 

Well, I certainly would prefer the adoption and use of a more general
purpose interface rather than exposing alloc_gigantic_page().

Both the interface I suggested and alloc_gigantic_page end up calling
alloc_contig_range().  I have not looked at your entire patch series, but
do be aware that in its present form alloc_contig_range will run into
issues if called by two threads simultaneously for the same page range.
Calling alloc_gigantic_page without some form of synchronization will
expose this issue.  Currently this is handled by hugetlb_lock for all
users of alloc_gigantic_page.  If you simply expose alloc_gigantic_page
without any type of synchronization, you may run into issues.  The first
patch in my RFC "mm: make start_isolate_page_range() fail if already
isolated" should handle this situation IF we decide to expose
alloc_gigantic_page (which I do not suggest).

-- 
Mike Kravetz