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;
Date:   Thu, 22 Feb 2018 04:22:54 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Subject: Re: Use higher-order pages in vmalloc
Message-ID: <20180222122254.GA22703@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <151670492223.658225.4605377710524021456.stgit@buzz>
 <151670493255.658225.2881484505285363395.stgit@buzz>
 <20180221154214.GA4167@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <fff58819-d39d-3a8a-f314-690bcb2f95d7@intel.com>
 <20180221170129.GB27687@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20180222065943.GA30681@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180222065943.GA30681@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 07:59:43AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 21-02-18 09:01:29, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Right.  It helps with fragmentation if we can keep higher-order
> > allocations together.
> 
> Hmm, wouldn't it help if we made vmalloc pages migrateable instead? That
> would help the compaction and get us to a lower fragmentation longterm
> without playing tricks in the allocation path.

I was wondering about that possibility.  If we want to migrate a page
then we have to shoot down the PTE across all CPUs, copy the data to the
new page, and insert the new PTE.  Copying 4kB doesn't take long; if you
have 12GB/s (current example on Wikipedia: dual-channel memory and one
DDR2-800 module per channel gives a theoretical bandwidth of 12.8GB/s)
then we should be able to copy a page in 666ns).  So there's no problem
holding a spinlock for it.

But we can't handle a fault in vmalloc space today.  It's handled in
arch-specific code, see vmalloc_fault() in arch/x86/mm/fault.c
If we're going to do this, it'll have to be something arches opt into
because I'm not taking on the job of fixing every architecture!

> Maybe we should consider kvmalloc for the kernel stack?

We'd lose the guard page, so it'd have to be something we let the
sysadmin decide to do.