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
References: <20180925200551.3576.18755.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
 <20180925202053.3576.66039.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20181009170051.GA40606@tiger-server>
 <CAPcyv4g99_rJJSn0kWv5YO0Mzj90q1LH1wC3XrjCh1=x6mo7BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <25092df0-b7b4-d456-8409-9c004cb6e422@linux.intel.com> <20181010095838.GG5873@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <f97de51c-67dd-99b2-754e-0685cac06699@linux.intel.com> <20181010172451.GK5873@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <98c35e19-13b9-0913-87d9-b3f1ab738b61@linux.intel.com> <20181010185242.GP5873@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20181011085509.GS5873@dhcp22.suse.cz> <6f32f23c-c21c-9d42-7dda-a1d18613cd3c@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <6f32f23c-c21c-9d42-7dda-a1d18613cd3c@linux.intel.com>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:22:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jYTtEDN2TrrKkhK-Ki1cNsR5yOw4QzTBDwimvO2h6dDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] mm: Defer ZONE_DEVICE page initialization to the
 point where we init pgmap
To:     alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
        Pasha Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Zhang Yi <yi.z.zhang@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:39 AM Alexander Duyck
<alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/11/2018 1:55 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 10-10-18 20:52:42, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> >> My recollection was that we do clear the reserved bit in
> >> move_pfn_range_to_zone and we indeed do in __init_single_page. But then
> >> we set the bit back right afterwards. This seems to be the case since
> >> d0dc12e86b319 which reorganized the code. I have to study this some more
> >> obviously.
> >
> > so my recollection was wrong and d0dc12e86b319 hasn't really changed
> > much because __init_single_page wouldn't zero out the struct page for
> > the hotplug contex. A comment in move_pfn_range_to_zone explains that we
> > want the reserved bit because pfn walkers already do see the pfn range
> > and the page is not fully associated with the zone until it is onlined.
> >
> > I am thinking that we might be overzealous here. With the full state
> > initialized we shouldn't actually care. pfn_to_online_page should return
> > NULL regardless of the reserved bit and normal pfn walkers shouldn't
> > touch pages they do not recognize and a plain page with ref. count 1
> > doesn't tell much to anybody. So I _suspect_ that we can simply drop the
> > reserved bit setting here.
>
> So this has me a bit hesitant to want to just drop the bit entirely. If
> nothing else I think I may wan to make that a patch onto itself so that
> if we aren't going to set it we just drop it there. That way if it does
> cause issues we can bisect it to that patch and pinpoint the cause.
>
> > Regarding the post initialization required by devm_memremap_pages and
> > potentially others. Can we update the altmap which is already a way how
> > to get alternative struct pages by a constructor which we could call
> > from memmap_init_zone and do the post initialization? This would reduce
> > the additional loop in the caller while it would still fit the overall
> > design of the altmap and the core hotplug doesn't have to know anything
> > about DAX or whatever needs a special treatment.
> >
> > Does that make any sense?
>
> I think the only thing that is currently using the altmap is the
> ZONE_DEVICE memory init. Specifically I think it is only really used by
> the devm_memremap_pages version of things, and then only under certain
> circumstances. Also the HMM driver doesn't pass an altmap. What we would
> really need is a non-ZONE_DEVICE users of the altmap to really justify
> sticking with that as the preferred argument to pass.

Right, the altmap is optional. It's only there to direct the memmap
array to be allocated from the memory-range being hot-added vs a
dynamic page-allocator allocation from System-RAM.

> For those two functions it currently makes much more sense to pass the
> dev_pagemap pointer and then reference the altmap from there. Otherwise
> we are likely starting to look at something that would be more of a
> dirty hack where we are passing a unused altmap in order to get to the
> dev_pagemap so that we could populate the page.

Yeah, we can't rely on the altmap, it's marked invalid in many cases.