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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180315101411.GA23100@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20180314134431.13241-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
 <20180314141323.GD23100@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAKv+Gu9hrZnX6pmiCaT=S30KQ11tY4kv=qvdSPPZ2nYDC7P7eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180314145450.GI23100@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAKv+Gu8qguR0tFWZxecQDTPS3_Eyt_E6_YA1ivyAAqNuaaR9-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180315101411.GA23100@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:17:24 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu_f9mNQ37GzfZybcUfanSAx1zH0ifSNfDE0EWACGH-GCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm/page_alloc: fix memmap_init_zone pageblock alignment"
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Daniel Vacek <neelx@redhat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@imgtec.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 15 March 2018 at 10:14, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed 14-03-18 15:54:16, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 14 March 2018 at 14:54, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed 14-03-18 14:35:12, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> >> On 14 March 2018 at 14:13, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >> > Does http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180313224240.25295-1-neelx@redhat.com
>> >> > fix your issue? From the debugging info you provided it should because
>> >> > the patch prevents jumping backwards.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The patch does fix the boot hang.
>> >>
>> >> But I am concerned that we are papering over a fundamental flaw in
>> >> memblock_next_valid_pfn().
>> >
>> > It seems that memblock_next_valid_pfn is doing the right thing here. It
>> > is the alignment which moves the pfn back AFAICS. I am not really
>> > impressed about the original patch either, to be completely honest.
>> > It just looks awfully tricky. I still didn't manage to wrap my head
>> > around the original issue though so I do not have much better ideas to
>> > be honest.
>>
>> So first of all, memblock_next_valid_pfn() never refers to its max_pfn
>> argument, which is odd nut easily fixed.
>
> There is a patch to remove that parameter sitting in the mmotm tree.
>
>> Then, the whole idea of substracting one so that the pfn++ will
>> produce the expected value is rather hacky,
>
> Absolutely agreed!
>
>> But the real problem is that rounding down pfn for the next iteration
>> is dodgy, because early_pfn_valid() isn't guaranteed to return true
>> for the rounded down value. I know it is probably fine in reality, but
>> dodgy as hell.
>
> Yes, that is what I meant when saying I was not impressed... I am always
> nervous when a loop makes jumps back and forth. I _think_ the main
> problem here is that we try to initialize a partial pageblock even
> though a part of it is invalid. We should simply ignore struct pages
> for those pfns. We don't do that and that is mostly because of the
> disconnect between what the page allocator and early init code refers to
> as a unit of memory to care about. I do not remember exactly why but I
> strongly suspect this is mostly a performance optimization on the page
> allocator side so that we do not have to check each and every pfn. Maybe
> we should signal partial pageblocks from an early code and drop the
> optimization in the page allocator init code.
>
>> The same applies to the call to early_pfn_in_nid() btw
>
> Why?

By 'the same' I mean it isn't guaranteed to return true for the
rounded down value *at the API level*. I understand it will be mostly
fine in reality, but juggling (in)valid PFNs like this is likely to
end badly.