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;
Message-ID: <139a402b4f9a09a4e89b0c0b0e556014ae7a8b83.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] nouveau/dmem: Evict device private memory during
 release
From:   Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>
To:     Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
        Christian =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        "Pan, Xinhui" <Xinhui.Pan@amd.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
        Karol Herbst <kherbst@redhat.com>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
        Alex Sierra <alex.sierra@amd.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 17:39:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87k05plm9j.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal>
References: <cover.f15b25597fc3afd45b144df863eeca3b2c13f9f4.1664171943.git-series.apopple@nvidia.com>
         <072e1ce590fe101a4cdbd5e91b1702efebb6d0fd.1664171943.git-series.apopple@nvidia.com>
         <881735bda9b1ba0ecf3648af201840233508f206.camel@redhat.com>
         <6ff9dcc5-c34b-963f-f5e7-7038eecae98b@nvidia.com>
         <87k05plm9j.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal>
Organization: Red Hat Inc.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 (3.42.4-2.fc35) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Re comments about infinite retry: gotcha, makes sense to me.

On Tue, 2022-09-27 at 09:45 +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> writes:
> 
> > On 9/26/22 14:35, Lyude Paul wrote:
> > > > +	for (i = 0; i < npages; i++) {
> > > > +		if (src_pfns[i] & MIGRATE_PFN_MIGRATE) {
> > > > +			struct page *dpage;
> > > > +
> > > > +			/*
> > > > +			 * _GFP_NOFAIL because the GPU is going away and there
> > > > +			 * is nothing sensible we can do if we can't copy the
> > > > +			 * data back.
> > > > +			 */
> > > 
> > > You'll have to excuse me for a moment since this area of nouveau isn't one of
> > > my strongpoints, but are we sure about this? IIRC __GFP_NOFAIL means infinite
> > > retry, in the case of a GPU hotplug event I would assume we would rather just
> > > stop trying to migrate things to the GPU and just drop the data instead of
> > > hanging on infinite retries.
> > > 
> 
> No problem, thanks for taking a look!
> 
> > Hi Lyude!
> > 
> > Actually, I really think it's better in this case to keep trying
> > (presumably not necessarily infinitely, but only until memory becomes
> > available), rather than failing out and corrupting data.
> > 
> > That's because I'm not sure it's completely clear that this memory is
> > discardable. And at some point, we're going to make this all work with
> > file-backed memory, which will *definitely* not be discardable--I
> > realize that we're not there yet, of course.
> > 
> > But here, it's reasonable to commit to just retrying indefinitely,
> > really. Memory should eventually show up. And if it doesn't, then
> > restarting the machine is better than corrupting data, generally.
> 
> The memory is definitely not discardable here if the migration failed
> because that implies it is still mapped into some userspace process.
> 
> We could avoid restarting the machine by doing something similar to what
> happens during memory failure and killing every process that maps the
> page(s). But overall I think it's better to retry until memory is
> available, because that allows things like reclaim to work and in the
> worst case allows the OOM killer to select an appropriate task to kill.
> It also won't cause data corruption if/when we have file-backed memory.
> 
> > thanks,
> 

-- 
Cheers,
 Lyude Paul (she/her)
 Software Engineer at Red Hat