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: <1594107889-32228-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
 <1594107889-32228-6-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <e72709dd-c7e2-ff26-f450-dbd2a719b2e4@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <e72709dd-c7e2-ff26-f450-dbd2a719b2e4@suse.cz>
From:   Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 16:17:08 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4M5kAFgS_P3D8R-1qM+Gpex1Zu=G7aQC3uAYno4UeKBrg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/11] mm/migrate: clear __GFP_RECLAIM for THP
 allocation for migration
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
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,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.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 7=EC=9B=94 7=EC=9D=BC (=ED=99=94) =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 9:17, Vl=
astimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
>
> On 7/7/20 9:44 AM, js1304@gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> >
> > In mm/migrate.c, THP allocation for migration is called with the provid=
ed
> > gfp_mask | GFP_TRANSHUGE. This gfp_mask contains __GFP_RECLAIM and it
> > would be conflict with the intention of the GFP_TRANSHUGE.
> >
> > GFP_TRANSHUGE/GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT is introduced to control the reclaim
> > behaviour by well defined manner since overhead of THP allocation is
> > quite large and the whole system could suffer from it. So, they deals
> > with __GFP_RECLAIM mask deliberately. If gfp_mask contains __GFP_RECLAI=
M
> > and uses gfp_mask | GFP_TRANSHUGE(_LIGHT) for THP allocation, it means
> > that it breaks the purpose of the GFP_TRANSHUGE(_LIGHT).
> >
> > This patch fixes this situation by clearing __GFP_RECLAIM in provided
> > gfp_mask. Note that there are some other THP allocations for migration
> > and they just uses GFP_TRANSHUGE(_LIGHT) directly. This patch would mak=
e
> > all THP allocation for migration consistent.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/migrate.c | 5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> > index 02b31fe..ecd7615 100644
> > --- a/mm/migrate.c
> > +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> > @@ -1547,6 +1547,11 @@ struct page *new_page_nodemask(struct page *page=
,
> >       }
> >
> >       if (PageTransHuge(page)) {
> > +             /*
> > +              * clear __GFP_RECALIM since GFP_TRANSHUGE is the gfp_mas=
k
> > +              * that chooses the reclaim masks deliberately.
> > +              */
> > +             gfp_mask &=3D ~__GFP_RECLAIM;
> >               gfp_mask |=3D GFP_TRANSHUGE;
>
> In addition to what Michal said...
>
> The mask is not passed to this function, so I would just redefine it, as =
is done
> in the hugetlb case. We probably don't even need the __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL =
for the
> THP case asi it's just there to prevent OOM kill (per commit 0f55685627d6=
d ) and
> the costly order of THP is enough for that.

As I said in another reply, provided __GFP_THISNODE should be handled
so just redefining it would not work.

Thanks.