Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-132176-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240404162515.527802-1-fvdl@google.com> <20240404162515.527802-2-fvdl@google.com>
 <20240404131734.5fdd7380202cafcdc44a4d2a@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240404131734.5fdd7380202cafcdc44a4d2a@linux-foundation.org>
From: Frank van der Linden <fvdl@google.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:58:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPTztWZ4GCPX7d1KqnBjtfi-kzcjnWibn6Ohj+=p47vBHep=SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/hugetlb: pass correct order_per_bit to cma_declare_contiguous_nid
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 1:17=E2=80=AFPM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation=
org> wrote:
>
> On Thu,  4 Apr 2024 16:25:15 +0000 Frank van der Linden <fvdl@google.com>=
 wrote:
>
> > The hugetlb_cma code passes 0 in the order_per_bit argument to
> > cma_declare_contiguous_nid (the alignment, computed using the
> > page order, is correctly passed in).
> >
> > This causes a bit in the cma allocation bitmap to always represent
> > a 4k page, making the bitmaps potentially very large, and slower.
> >
> > So, correctly pass in the order instead.
>
> Ditto.  Should we backport this?   Can we somewhat quantify "potentially =
very",
> and understand under what circumstances this might occur?

It would create bitmaps that would be pretty big. E.g. for a 4k page
size on x86, hugetlb_cma=3D64G would mean a bitmap size of (64G / 4k) /
8 =3D=3D 2M. With HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER as order_per_bit, as intended, this
would be (64G / 2M) / 8 =3D=3D 4k. So, that's quite a difference :)

Also, this restricted the hugetlb_cma area to ((PAGE_SIZE <<
MAX_PAGE_ORDER) * 8) * PAGE_SIZE (e.g. 128G on x86) , since
bitmap_alloc uses normal page allocation, and is thus restricted by
MAX_PAGE_ORDER. Specifying anything about that would fail the CMA
initialization.

- Frank