Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1592892828-1934-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
 <1592892828-1934-5-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <20200625115422.GE1320@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAAmzW4MHuRhNqVXMntLAc_x4kJgkgQ-pD5GfFxRxJRchrEFr9g@mail.gmail.com> <20200626072324.GT1320@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20200626072324.GT1320@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:27:25 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4NLVwvqtoUb+JJ+WV=7_n800vA+YYC0LyrDS6iQ7wxcdg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] mm/hugetlb: make hugetlb migration callback CMA aware
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-team@lge.com,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2020=EB=85=84 6=EC=9B=94 26=EC=9D=BC (=EA=B8=88) =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 4:23, M=
ichal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
>
> On Fri 26-06-20 13:49:15, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > 2020=EB=85=84 6=EC=9B=94 25=EC=9D=BC (=EB=AA=A9) =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 8:5=
4, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
> > >
> > > On Tue 23-06-20 15:13:44, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> > > >
> > > > new_non_cma_page() in gup.c which try to allocate migration target =
page
> > > > requires to allocate the new page that is not on the CMA area.
> > > > new_non_cma_page() implements it by removing __GFP_MOVABLE flag. Th=
is way
> > > > works well for THP page or normal page but not for hugetlb page.
> > >
> > > Could you explain why? I mean why cannot you simply remove __GFP_MOVA=
BLE
> > > flag when calling alloc_huge_page_nodemask and check for it in dequeu=
e
> > > path?
> >
> > If we remove __GFP_MOVABLE when calling alloc_huge_page_nodemask, we ca=
nnot
> > use the page in ZONE_MOVABLE on dequeing.
> >
> > __GFP_MOVABLE is not only used for CMA selector but also used for zone
> > selector.  If we clear it, we cannot use the page in the ZONE_MOVABLE
> > even if it's not CMA pages.  For THP page or normal page allocation,
> > there is no way to avoid this weakness without introducing another
> > flag or argument. For me, introducing another flag or argument for
> > these functions looks over-engineering so I don't change them and
> > leave them as they are (removing __GFP_MOVABLE).
> >
> > But, for alloc_huge_page_nodemask(), introducing a new argument
> > doesn't seem to be a problem since it is not a general function but
> > just a migration target allocation function.
>
> I really do not see why hugetlb and only the dequeing part should be
> special. This just leads to a confusion. From the code point of view it
> makes perfect sense to opt out CMA regions for !__GFP_MOVABLE when
> dequeing. So I would rather see a consistent behavior than a special
> case deep in the hugetlb allocator layer.

It seems that there is a misunderstanding. It's possible to opt out CMA reg=
ions
for !__GFP_MOVABLE when dequeing. It's reasonable. But, for !__GFP_MOVABLE,
we don't search the hugetlb page on the ZONE_MOVABLE when dequeing since
dequeing zone is limited by gfp_zone(gfp_mask). Solution that Introduces a =
new
argument doesn't cause this problem while avoiding CMA regions.

Thanks.