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: [PATCH v2 0/5] Allocate memmap from hotadded memory
To:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@suse.com,
        dan.j.williams@intel.com, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com,
        Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, anshuman.khandual@arm.com,
        vbabka@suse.cz, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20190625075227.15193-1-osalvador@suse.de>
 <2ebfbd36-11bd-9576-e373-2964c458185b@redhat.com>
 <20190626080249.GA30863@linux>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=david@redhat.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 xsFNBFXLn5EBEAC+zYvAFJxCBY9Tr1xZgcESmxVNI/0ffzE/ZQOiHJl6mGkmA1R7/uUpiCjJ
 dBrn+lhhOYjjNefFQou6478faXE6o2AhmebqT4KiQoUQFV4R7y1KMEKoSyy8hQaK1umALTdL
 QZLQMzNE74ap+GDK0wnacPQFpcG1AE9RMq3aeErY5tujekBS32jfC/7AnH7I0v1v1TbbK3Gp
 XNeiN4QroO+5qaSr0ID2sz5jtBLRb15RMre27E1ImpaIv2Jw8NJgW0k/D1RyKCwaTsgRdwuK
 Kx/Y91XuSBdz0uOyU/S8kM1+ag0wvsGlpBVxRR/xw/E8M7TEwuCZQArqqTCmkG6HGcXFT0V9
 PXFNNgV5jXMQRwU0O/ztJIQqsE5LsUomE//bLwzj9IVsaQpKDqW6TAPjcdBDPLHvriq7kGjt
 WhVhdl0qEYB8lkBEU7V2Yb+SYhmhpDrti9Fq1EsmhiHSkxJcGREoMK/63r9WLZYI3+4W2rAc
 UucZa4OT27U5ZISjNg3Ev0rxU5UH2/pT4wJCfxwocmqaRr6UYmrtZmND89X0KigoFD/XSeVv
 jwBRNjPAubK9/k5NoRrYqztM9W6sJqrH8+UWZ1Idd/DdmogJh0gNC0+N42Za9yBRURfIdKSb
 B3JfpUqcWwE7vUaYrHG1nw54pLUoPG6sAA7Mehl3nd4pZUALHwARAQABzSREYXZpZCBIaWxk
 ZW5icmFuZCA8ZGF2aWRAcmVkaGF0LmNvbT7CwX4EEwECACgFAljj9eoCGwMFCQlmAYAGCwkI
 BwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEE3eEPcA/4Na5IIP/3T/FIQMxIfNzZshIq687qgG
 8UbspuE/YSUDdv7r5szYTK6KPTlqN8NAcSfheywbuYD9A4ZeSBWD3/NAVUdrCaRP2IvFyELj
 xoMvfJccbq45BxzgEspg/bVahNbyuBpLBVjVWwRtFCUEXkyazksSv8pdTMAs9IucChvFmmq3
 jJ2vlaz9lYt/lxN246fIVceckPMiUveimngvXZw21VOAhfQ+/sofXF8JCFv2mFcBDoa7eYob
 s0FLpmqFaeNRHAlzMWgSsP80qx5nWWEvRLdKWi533N2vC/EyunN3HcBwVrXH4hxRBMco3jvM
 m8VKLKao9wKj82qSivUnkPIwsAGNPdFoPbgghCQiBjBe6A75Z2xHFrzo7t1jg7nQfIyNC7ez
 MZBJ59sqA9EDMEJPlLNIeJmqslXPjmMFnE7Mby/+335WJYDulsRybN+W5rLT5aMvhC6x6POK
 z55fMNKrMASCzBJum2Fwjf/VnuGRYkhKCqqZ8gJ3OvmR50tInDV2jZ1DQgc3i550T5JDpToh
 dPBxZocIhzg+MBSRDXcJmHOx/7nQm3iQ6iLuwmXsRC6f5FbFefk9EjuTKcLMvBsEx+2DEx0E
 UnmJ4hVg7u1PQ+2Oy+Lh/opK/BDiqlQ8Pz2jiXv5xkECvr/3Sv59hlOCZMOaiLTTjtOIU7Tq
 7ut6OL64oAq+zsFNBFXLn5EBEADn1959INH2cwYJv0tsxf5MUCghCj/CA/lc/LMthqQ773ga
 uB9mN+F1rE9cyyXb6jyOGn+GUjMbnq1o121Vm0+neKHUCBtHyseBfDXHA6m4B3mUTWo13nid
 0e4AM71r0DS8+KYh6zvweLX/LL5kQS9GQeT+QNroXcC1NzWbitts6TZ+IrPOwT1hfB4WNC+X
 2n4AzDqp3+ILiVST2DT4VBc11Gz6jijpC/KI5Al8ZDhRwG47LUiuQmt3yqrmN63V9wzaPhC+
 xbwIsNZlLUvuRnmBPkTJwwrFRZvwu5GPHNndBjVpAfaSTOfppyKBTccu2AXJXWAE1Xjh6GOC
 8mlFjZwLxWFqdPHR1n2aPVgoiTLk34LR/bXO+e0GpzFXT7enwyvFFFyAS0Nk1q/7EChPcbRb
 hJqEBpRNZemxmg55zC3GLvgLKd5A09MOM2BrMea+l0FUR+PuTenh2YmnmLRTro6eZ/qYwWkC
 u8FFIw4pT0OUDMyLgi+GI1aMpVogTZJ70FgV0pUAlpmrzk/bLbRkF3TwgucpyPtcpmQtTkWS
 gDS50QG9DR/1As3LLLcNkwJBZzBG6PWbvcOyrwMQUF1nl4SSPV0LLH63+BrrHasfJzxKXzqg
 rW28CTAE2x8qi7e/6M/+XXhrsMYG+uaViM7n2je3qKe7ofum3s4vq7oFCPsOgwARAQABwsFl
 BBgBAgAPBQJVy5+RAhsMBQkJZgGAAAoJEE3eEPcA/4NagOsP/jPoIBb/iXVbM+fmSHOjEshl
 KMwEl/m5iLj3iHnHPVLBUWrXPdS7iQijJA/VLxjnFknhaS60hkUNWexDMxVVP/6lbOrs4bDZ
 NEWDMktAeqJaFtxackPszlcpRVkAs6Msn9tu8hlvB517pyUgvuD7ZS9gGOMmYwFQDyytpepo
 YApVV00P0u3AaE0Cj/o71STqGJKZxcVhPaZ+LR+UCBZOyKfEyq+ZN311VpOJZ1IvTExf+S/5
 lqnciDtbO3I4Wq0ArLX1gs1q1XlXLaVaA3yVqeC8E7kOchDNinD3hJS4OX0e1gdsx/e6COvy
 qNg5aL5n0Kl4fcVqM0LdIhsubVs4eiNCa5XMSYpXmVi3HAuFyg9dN+x8thSwI836FoMASwOl
 C7tHsTjnSGufB+D7F7ZBT61BffNBBIm1KdMxcxqLUVXpBQHHlGkbwI+3Ye+nE6HmZH7IwLwV
 W+Ajl7oYF+jeKaH4DZFtgLYGLtZ1LDwKPjX7VAsa4Yx7S5+EBAaZGxK510MjIx6SGrZWBrrV
 TEvdV00F2MnQoeXKzD7O4WFbL55hhyGgfWTHwZ457iN9SgYi1JLPqWkZB0JRXIEtjd4JEQcx
 +8Umfre0Xt4713VxMygW0PnQt5aSQdMD58jHFxTk092mU+yIHj5LeYgvwSgZN4airXk5yRXl
 SE+xAvmumFBY
Organization: Red Hat GmbH
Message-ID: <2750c11a-524d-b248-060c-49e6b3eb8975@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jun 2019 10:11:06 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190626080249.GA30863@linux>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 26.06.19 10:03, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:25:48AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> [Coverletter]
>>>
>>> This is another step to make memory hotplug more usable. The primary
>>> goal of this patchset is to reduce memory overhead of the hot-added
>>> memory (at least for SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP memory model). The current way we use
>>> to populate memmap (struct page array) has two main drawbacks:
> 
> First off, thanks for looking into this :-)

Thanks for working on this ;)

> 
>>
>> Mental note: How will it be handled if a caller specifies "Allocate
>> memmap from hotadded memory", but we are running under SPARSEMEM where
>> we can't do this.
> 
> In add_memory_resource(), we have a call to mhp_check_correct_flags(), which is
> in charge of checking if the flags passed are compliant with our configuration
> among other things.
> It also checks if both flags were passed (_MEMBLOCK|_DEVICE).
> 
> If a) any of the flags were specified and we are not on CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP,
> b) the flags are colliding with each other or c) the flags just do not make sense,
> we print out a warning and drop the flags to 0, so we just ignore them.
> 
> I just realized that I can adjust the check even more (something for the next
> version).
> 
> But to answer your question, flags are ignored under !CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP.

So it is indeed a hint only.

> 
>>
>>>
>>> a) it consumes an additional memory until the hotadded memory itself is
>>>    onlined and
>>> b) memmap might end up on a different numa node which is especially true
>>>    for movable_node configuration.
>>>
>>> a) it is a problem especially for memory hotplug based memory "ballooning"
>>>    solutions when the delay between physical memory hotplug and the
>>>    onlining can lead to OOM and that led to introduction of hacks like auto
>>>    onlining (see 31bc3858ea3e ("memory-hotplug: add automatic onlining
>>>    policy for the newly added memory")).
>>>
>>> b) can have performance drawbacks.
>>>
>>> Another minor case is that I have seen hot-add operations failing on archs
>>> because they were running out of order-x pages.
>>> E.g On powerpc, in certain configurations, we use order-8 pages,
>>> and given 64KB base pagesize, that is 16MB.
>>> If we run out of those, we just fail the operation and we cannot add
>>> more memory.
>>
>> At least for SPARSEMEM, we fallback to vmalloc() to work around this
>> issue. I haven't looked into the populate_section_memmap() internals
>> yet. Can you point me at the code that performs this allocation?
> 
> Yes, on SPARSEMEM we first try to allocate the pages physical configuous, and
> then fallback to vmalloc.
> This is because on CONFIG_SPARSEMEM memory model, the translations pfn_to_page/
> page_to_pfn do not expect the memory to be contiguous.
> 
> But that is not the case on CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP.
> We do expect the memory to be physical contigous there, that is why a simply
> pfn_to_page/page_to_pfn is a matter of adding/substracting vmemmap/pfn.

Yeas, I explored that last week but didn't figure out where the actual
vmmap population code resided - thanks :)

> 
> Powerpc code is at:
> 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.2-rc6/source/arch/powerpc/mm/init_64.c#L175
> 
> 
> 
>> So, assuming we add_memory(1GB, MHP_MEMMAP_DEVICE) and then
>> remove_memory(128MB) of the added memory, this will work?
> 
> No, MHP_MEMMAP_DEVICE is meant to be used when hot-adding and hot-removing work
> in the same granularity.
> This is because all memmap pages will be stored at the beginning of the memory
> range.
> Allowing hot-removing in a different granularity on MHP_MEMMAP_DEVICE would imply
> a lot of extra work.
> For example, we would have to parse the vmemmap-head of the hot-removed range,
> and punch a hole in there to clear the vmemmap pages, and then be very carefull
> when deleting those pagetables.
> 
> So I followed Michal's advice, and I decided to let the caller specify if he
> either wants to allocate per memory block or per hot-added range(device).
> Where per memory block, allows us to do:
> 
> add_memory(1GB, MHP_MEMMAP_MEMBLOCK)
> remove_memory(128MB)

Back then, I already mentioned that we might have some users that
remove_memory() they never added in a granularity it wasn't added. My
concerns back then were never fully sorted out.

arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/memtrace.c

- Will remove memory in memory block size chunks it never added
- What if that memory resides on a DIMM added via MHP_MEMMAP_DEVICE?

Will it at least bail out? Or simply break?

IOW: I am not yet 100% convinced that MHP_MEMMAP_DEVICE is save to be
introduced.

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb