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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] Calculate pcp->high based on zone sizes and active
 CPUs
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, "Tang, Feng" <feng.tang@intel.com>
References: <20210525080119.5455-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
 <7177f59b-dc05-daff-7dc6-5815b539a790@intel.com>
 <20210528085545.GJ30378@techsingularity.net>
 <54ff0363-2f39-71d1-e26c-962c3fddedae@redhat.com>
 <e73d39cc-df2f-5000-0212-6073955fb291@redhat.com>
 <20210528094949.GL30378@techsingularity.net>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Message-ID: <6c189def-11cc-80db-0fde-56aa506cfdea@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 May 2021 11:52:53 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210528094949.GL30378@techsingularity.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 28.05.21 11:49, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 11:08:01AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 28.05.21 11:03, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 28.05.21 10:55, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:36:21PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>>>> Hi Mel,
>>>>>
>>>>> Feng Tang tossed these on a "Cascade Lake" system with 96 threads and
>>>>> ~512G of persistent memory and 128G of DRAM.  The PMEM is in "volatile
>>>>> use" mode and being managed via the buddy just like the normal RAM.
>>>>>
>>>>> The PMEM zones are big ones:
>>>>>
>>>>>            present  65011712 = 248 G
>>>>>            high       134595 = 525 M
>>>>>
>>>>> The PMEM nodes, of course, don't have any CPUs in them.
>>>>>
>>>>> With your series, the pcp->high value per-cpu is 69584 pages or about
>>>>> 270MB per CPU.  Scaled up by the 96 CPU threads, that's ~26GB of
>>>>> worst-case memory in the pcps per zone, or roughly 10% of the size of
>>>>> the zone.
>>>
>>> When I read about having such big amounts of free memory theoretically
>>> stuck in PCP lists, I guess we really want to start draining the PCP in
>>> alloc_contig_range(), just as we do with memory hotunplug when offlining.
>>>
>>
>> Correction: we already drain the pcp, we just don't temporarily disable it,
>> so a race as described in offline_pages() could apply:
>>
>> "Disable pcplists so that page isolation cannot race with freeing
>>   in a way that pages from isolated pageblock are left on pcplists."
>>
>> Guess we'd then want to move the draining before start_isolate_page_range()
>> in alloc_contig_range().
>>
> 
> Or instead of draining, validate the PFN range in alloc_contig_range
> is within the same zone and if so, call zone_pcp_disable() before
> start_isolate_page_range and enable after __alloc_contig_migrate_range.
> 

We require the caller to only pass a range within a single zone, so that 
should be fine.

The only ugly thing about zone_pcp_disable() is 
mutex_lock(&pcp_batch_high_lock) which would serialize all 
alloc_contig_range() and even with offline_pages().

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb