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;
Date:   Wed, 29 Jul 2020 18:33:59 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        mhocko@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        walken@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jianchao Guo <guojianchao@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/hugetlb: add mempolicy check in the reservation
 routine
Message-ID: <20200729103359.GE14854@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <20200728034938.14993-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com>
 <20200728132453.GB14854@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
 <1b507031-d475-b495-bb4a-2cd9e665d02f@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1b507031-d475-b495-bb4a-2cd9e665d02f@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 07/28/20 at 09:46am, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 7/28/20 6:24 AM, Baoquan He wrote:
> > Hi Muchun,
> > 
> > On 07/28/20 at 11:49am, Muchun Song wrote:
> >> In the reservation routine, we only check whether the cpuset meets
> >> the memory allocation requirements. But we ignore the mempolicy of
> >> MPOL_BIND case. If someone mmap hugetlb succeeds, but the subsequent
> >> memory allocation may fail due to mempolicy restrictions and receives
> >> the SIGBUS signal. This can be reproduced by the follow steps.
> >>
> >>  1) Compile the test case.
> >>     cd tools/testing/selftests/vm/
> >>     gcc map_hugetlb.c -o map_hugetlb
> >>
> >>  2) Pre-allocate huge pages. Suppose there are 2 numa nodes in the
> >>     system. Each node will pre-allocate one huge page.
> >>     echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages
> >>
> >>  3) Run test case(mmap 4MB). We receive the SIGBUS signal.
> >>     numactl --membind=0 ./map_hugetlb 4
> > 
> > I think supporting the  mempolicy of MPOL_BIND case is a good idea.
> > I am wondering what about the other mempolicy cases, e.g MPOL_INTERLEAVE,
> > MPOL_PREFERRED. Asking these because we already have similar handling in
> > sysfs, proc nr_hugepages_mempolicy writting. Please see
> > __nr_hugepages_store_common() for detail.
> 
> There is a high level difference in the function of this code and the code
> called by the sysfs and proc interfaces.  This patch is dealing with reserving
> huge pages in the pool for later use.  The sysfs and proc interfaces are
> allocating huge pages to be added to the pool.
> 
> Using mempolicy to decide how to allocate huge pages is pretty straight
> forward.  Using mempolicy to reserve pages is almost impossible to get
> correct.  The comment at the beginning of hugetlb_acct_memory() and modified
> by this patch summarizes the issues.
> 
> IMO, at this time it makes little sense to perform checks for more than
> MPOL_BIND at reservation time.  If we ever take on the monumental task of
> supporting mempolicy directed per-node reservations throughout the life of
> a process, support for other policies will need to be taken into account.

I haven't figured out the difficulty of using mempolicy very clearly, will 
read more codes and digest and understand your words. Thanks a lot for
these details.

Thanks
Baoquan