Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 6 Feb 2022 02:11:22 +0000
From:   Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        mhocko@suse.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: add zone to zonelist if populated
Message-ID: <20220206021122.luaihnjz3vhqwxax@master>
Reply-To: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
References: <20220203020022.3044-1-richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
 <530d1ca4-6e05-b237-e0a9-c43d61767c4d@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <530d1ca4-6e05-b237-e0a9-c43d61767c4d@redhat.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 10:25:51AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>On 03.02.22 03:00, Wei Yang wrote:
>> During memory hotplug, when online/offline a zone, we need to rebuild
>> the zonelist for all nodes. Current behavior would lose a valid zone in
>> zonelist since only pick up managed_zone.
>> 
>> There are two cases for a zone with memory but still !managed.
>> 
>>   * all pages were allocated via memblock
>>   * all pages were taken by ballooning / virtio-mem
>> 
>> This state maybe temporary, since both of them may release some memory.
>> Then it end up with a managed zone not in zonelist.
>> 
>> This is introduced in 'commit 6aa303defb74 ("mm, vmscan: only allocate
>> and reclaim from zones with pages managed by the buddy allocator")'.
>> This patch restore the behavior.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
>> CC: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
>> CC: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>> Fixes: 6aa303defb74 ("mm, vmscan: only allocate and reclaim from zones with pages managed by the buddy allocator")
>
>That commit mentions that there used to be some ppc64 cases with fadump
>where it might have been a real problem. Unfortunately, that commit
>doesn't really tell what the performance implications are.
>

It mentioned a 100% CPU usage by commit 1d82de618ddd. Currently I don't find
which part introduced this and how it is fixed.

>We'd have to know how many "permanent memblock" allocations we have,
>that can never get freed.
>

For the case in that commit, the memory are reserved for crash kernel. I am
afraid this never get freed.

But for all the cases, I am not sure.

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me