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;
From:   Huaisheng HS1 Ye <yehs1@lenovo.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
CC:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "vbabka@suse.cz" <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        "mgorman@techsingularity.net" <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        "pasha.tatashin@oracle.com" <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>,
        "alexander.levin@verizon.com" <alexander.levin@verizon.com>,
        "hannes@cmpxchg.org" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        "penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp" 
        <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        "colyli@suse.de" <colyli@suse.de>,
        NingTing Cheng <chengnt@lenovo.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [External]  Re: [PATCH 2/3] include/linux/gfp.h: use unsigned int
 in gfp_zone
Thread-Topic: [External]  Re: [PATCH 2/3] include/linux/gfp.h: use unsigned
 int in gfp_zone
Thread-Index: AQHT46zY0MF6WC61BUed7IoviL30RKQftP0AgAKu3ZCAAFaOAIAAIzywgAAyoACAAV5skIAAMLwAgABY5iA=
Date:   Tue, 8 May 2018 00:25:31 +0000
Message-ID: <HK2PR03MB1684F0E4DFF0184486BB285B929A0@HK2PR03MB1684.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1525416729-108201-1-git-send-email-yehs1@lenovo.com>
 <1525416729-108201-3-git-send-email-yehs1@lenovo.com>
 <20180504133533.GR4535@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20180504154004.GB29829@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <HK2PR03MB168459A1C4FB2B7D3E1F6A4A92840@HK2PR03MB1684.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <20180506134814.GB7362@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <HK2PR03MB168447008C658172FFDA402992840@HK2PR03MB1684.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <20180506185532.GA13604@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <HK2PR03MB1684BF10B3B515BFABD35F8B929B0@HK2PR03MB1684.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <20180507184410.GA12361@bombadil.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180507184410.GA12361@bombadil.infradead.org>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: lenovo.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 04b04c40-6e61-48e4-f653-08d5b47a3547
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 May 2018 00:25:31.4380
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5c7d0b28-bdf8-410c-aa93-4df372b16203
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HK2PR03MB0819
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 05:16:50PM +0000, Huaisheng HS1 Ye wrote:
> > I hope it couldn't cause problem, but based on my analyzation it has th=
e
> potential to go wrong if users still use the flags as usual, which are __=
GFP_DMA,
> __GFP_DMA32 and __GFP_HIGHMEM.
> > Let me take an example with my testing platform, these logics are much
> abstract, an example will be helpful.
> >
> > There is a two sockets X86_64 server, No HIGHMEM and it has 16 + 16GB
> memories.
> > Its zone types shall be like this below,
> >
> > ZONE_DMA		0		0b0000
> > ZONE_DMA32		1		0b0001
> > ZONE_NORMAL		2		0b0010
> > (OPT_ZONE_HIGHMEM)	2		0b0010
> > ZONE_MOVABLE		3		0b0011
> > ZONE_DEVICE		4		0b0100 (virtual zone)
> > __MAX_NR_ZONES	5
> >
> > __GFP_DMA	=3D ZONE_DMA ^ ZONE_NORMAL=3D 0b0010
> > __GFP_DMA32	=3D ZONE_DMA32 ^ ZONE_NORMAL=3D 0b0011
> > __GFP_HIGHMEM =3D OPT_ZONE_HIGHMEM ^ ZONE_NORMAL =3D 0b0000
> > __GFP_MOVABLE	=3D ZONE_MOVABLE ^ ZONE_NORMAL |
> ___GFP_MOVABLE =3D 0b1001
> >
> > Eg.
> > If a driver uses flags like this below,
> > Step 1:
> > gfp_mask  |  __GFP_DMA32;
> > (0b 0000		|	0b 0011	=3D 0b 0011)
> > gfp_mask's low four bits shall equal to 0011, assuming no __GFP_MOVABLE
> >
> > Step 2:
> > gfp_mask  & ~__GFP_DMA;
> > (0b 0011	 & ~0b0010   =3D 0b0001)
> > gfp_mask's low four bits shall equal to 0001 now, then when it enter
> gfp_zone(),
> >
> > return ((__force int)flags & ___GFP_ZONE_MASK) ^ ZONE_NORMAL;
> > (0b0001 ^ 0b0010 =3D 0b0011)
> > You know 0011 means that ZONE_MOVABLE will be returned.
> > In this case, error can be found, because gfp_mask needs to get
> ZONE_DMA32 originally.
> > But with existing GFP_ZONE_TABLE/BAD, it is correct. Because the bits a=
re
> way of 0x1, 0x2, 0x4, 0x8
>=20
> Yes, I understand your point here.  My point was that this was already a =
bug;
> the caller shouldn't simply be clearing __GFP_DMA; they really mean to cl=
ear
> all of the GFP_ZONE bits so that they allocate from ZONE_NORMAL.  And for
> that, they should be using ~GFP_ZONEMASK
That is great, if they can follow this principle, I don't worry it. Maybe I=
 am too cautious.

>=20
> Unless they already know, of course.  For example, this one in
> arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c is fine:
>=20
>         if (strcmp(arg, "nohigh") =3D=3D 0)
>                 __userpte_alloc_gfp &=3D ~__GFP_HIGHMEM;
>=20
> because it knows that __userpte_alloc_gfp can only have __GFP_HIGHMEM set=
.
>=20
> But something like btrfs should almost certainly be using ~GFP_ZONEMASK.


> > > +#define __GFP_HIGHMEM  ((__force gfp_t)OPT_ZONE_HIGHMEM ^
> > > ZONE_NORMAL)
> > > -#define __GFP_MOVABLE  ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_MOVABLE)  /*
> > > ZONE_MOVABLE allowed */
> > > +#define __GFP_MOVABLE  ((__force gfp_t)ZONE_MOVABLE ^
> > > ZONE_NORMAL | \
> > > +					___GFP_MOVABLE)
> > >
> > > Then I think you can just make it:
> > >
> > > static inline enum zone_type gfp_zone(gfp_t flags)
> > > {
> > > 	return ((__force int)flags & ___GFP_ZONE_MASK) ^ ZONE_NORMAL;
> > > }
> > Sorry, I think it has risk in this way, let me introduce a failure case=
 for
> example.
> >
> > Now suppose that, there is a flag should represent DMA flag with movabl=
e.
> > It should be like this below,
> > __GFP_DMA | __GFP_MOVABLE
> > (0b 0010       |   0b 1001   =3D 0b 1011)
> > Normally, gfp_zone shall return ZONE_DMA but with MOVABLE policy, right=
?
>=20
> No, if you somehow end up with __GFP_MOVABLE | __GFP_DMA, it should give
> you ZONE_DMA.
Exactly, it should return ZONE_DMA, that's what I thought.

>=20
> > But with your code, gfp_zone will return ZONE_DMA32 with MOVABLE
> >policy.
> > (0b 1011  ^  0b 0010 =3D 1001)
>=20
> ___GFP_ZONE_MASK is 0x7, so it excludes __GFP_MOVABLE.
Sorry, I made a mistake here. I rewrite it as below.

((__GFP_DMA | __GFP_MOVABLE) & ___GFP_ZONE_MASK)
   ((0b 0010  |  0b 1001  =3D 0b 1011) & 0b 0111)	=3D 0b 0011

0b 0011 ^ 0b 0010 =3D 0b 0001
So ZONE_DMA32 will be returned, but what user needs is ZONE_DMA.

Thanks,
Huaisheng