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: <20200901124615.137200-1-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
 <20200902140851.GJ4617@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CA+CK2bBZdN56fmsC2jyY_ju8rQfG2-9hForf1CEdcUVL1+wrrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <74f2341a-7834-3e37-0346-7fbc48d74df3@suse.cz> <20200902151306.GL4617@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <e6bf05cb-044c-47a9-3c65-e41b1e42b702@suse.cz> <20200903063806.GM4617@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <c6b11905-2456-52a0-3b15-d4ceae6e7f54@redhat.com> <CA+CK2bBTfmhTWNRrxnVKi=iknqq-iZxNZSnwNA9C9tWAJzRxmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <d89510b1-a6a2-a874-7ffc-ba7a37d4212d@redhat.com> <20200904070235.GA15277@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20200904070235.GA15277@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Sep 2020 10:25:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+CK2bDON8A5AmKqPFWOytP-B29U-YAc9maQAvV-oGffaek6Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memory_hotplug: drain per-cpu pages again during
 memory offline
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> Another alternative would be to enable/disable static branch only from
> users who really care but this is quite tricky because how do you tell
> you need or not? It seems that alloc_contig_range would be just fine
> with a weaker semantic because it would "only" to a spurious failure.
> Memory hotplug on the other hand really needs to have a point where
> nobody interferes with the offlined memory so it could ask for a
> stronger semantic.
>
> Yet another option would be to make draining stronger and actually
> guarantee there are no in-flight pages to be freed to the pcp list.
> One way would be to tweak pcp->high and implement a strong barrier
> (IPI?) to sync with all CPUs. Quite expensive, especially when there are
> many draining requests (read cma users because hotplug doesn't really
> matter much as it happens seldom).
>
> So no nice&cheap solution I can think of...

I think start_isolate_page_range() should not be doing page draining
at all. It should isolate ranges, meaning set appropriate flags, but
draining should be performed by the users when appropriate: next to
lru_add_drain_all() calls both in CMA and hotplug.
Currently, the way start_isolate_page_range() drains pages is very
inefficient. It calls drain_all_pages() for every valid page block,
which is a slow call as it starts a thread per cpu, and waits for
those threads to finish before returning.

We could optimize by moving the drain_all_pages() calls from
set_migratetype_isolate() to start_isolate_page_range() and call it
once for every different zone, but both current users of this
interface guarantee that all pfns [start_pfn, end_pfn] are within the
same zone, and I think we should keep it this way, so again the extra
traversal is going to be overhead overhead.

This way we will have on average only a single drain per hot-remove
(instead of one per block), and also it is going to be symmetric only
in one place. Faster hot-remove and cma alloc, and no race, imo
win-win.

Pasha