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:   Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:19:48 +0200
From:   Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        Scott Cheloha <cheloha@linux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] mm/page_alloc: place pages to tail in
 __putback_isolated_page()
Message-ID: <20200925131948.GB3910@linux>
References: <20200916183411.64756-1-david@redhat.com>
 <20200916183411.64756-3-david@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200916183411.64756-3-david@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 08:34:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> __putback_isolated_page() already documents that pages will be placed to
> the tail of the freelist - this is, however, not the case for
> "order >= MAX_ORDER - 2" (see buddy_merge_likely()) - which should be
> the case for all existing users.
> 
> This change affects two users:
> - free page reporting
> - page isolation, when undoing the isolation.
> 
> This behavior is desireable for pages that haven't really been touched
> lately, so exactly the two users that don't actually read/write page
> content, but rather move untouched pages.
> 
> The new behavior is especially desirable for memory onlining, where we
> allow allocation of newly onlined pages via undo_isolate_page_range()
> in online_pages(). Right now, we always place them to the head of the
> free list, resulting in undesireable behavior: Assume we add
> individual memory chunks via add_memory() and online them right away to
> the NORMAL zone. We create a dependency chain of unmovable allocations
> e.g., via the memmap. The memmap of the next chunk will be placed onto
> previous chunks - if the last block cannot get offlined+removed, all
> dependent ones cannot get offlined+removed. While this can already be
> observed with individual DIMMs, it's more of an issue for virtio-mem
> (and I suspect also ppc DLPAR).
> 
> Note: If we observe a degradation due to the changed page isolation
> behavior (which I doubt), we can always make this configurable by the
> instance triggering undo of isolation (e.g., alloc_contig_range(),
> memory onlining, memory offlining).
> 
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>
> Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
> Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
> Cc: Scott Cheloha <cheloha@linux.ibm.com>
> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

LGTM, the only thing is the shuffe_zone topic that Wei and Vlastimil rose.
Feels a bit odd that takes precedence over something we explicitily demanded.

With the comment Vlastimil suggested:

Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>

-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3