> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roman Gushchin [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 9:48 AM
> To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Linuxarm <[email protected]>; Mike
> Kravetz <[email protected]>; Jonathan Cameron
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: avoid hardcoding while checking if cma is
> reserved
>
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 08:44:05PM +1200, Barry Song wrote:
>
> Hello, Barry!
>
> > hugetlb_cma[0] can be NULL due to various reasons, for example, node0 has
> > no memory. Thus, NULL hugetlb_cma[0] doesn't necessarily mean cma is not
> > enabled. gigantic pages might have been reserved on other nodes.
>
> Just curious, is it a real-life problem you've seen? If so, I wonder how
> you're using the hugetlb_cma option, and what's the outcome?
Yes. It is kind of stupid but I once got a board on which node0 has no DDR
though node1 and node3 have memory.
I actually prefer we get cma size of per node by:
cma size of one node = hugetlb_cma/ (nodes with memory)
rather than:
cma size of one node = hugetlb_cma/ (all online nodes)
but unfortunately, or the N_MEMORY infrastructures are not ready yet. I mean:
for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
int res;
size = min(per_node, hugetlb_cma_size - reserved);
size = round_up(size, PAGE_SIZE << order);
res = cma_declare_contiguous_nid(0, size, 0, PAGE_SIZE << order,
0, false, "hugetlb",
&hugetlb_cma[nid], nid);
...
}
>
> >
> > Fixes: cf11e85fc08c ("mm: hugetlb: optionally allocate gigantic hugepages
> using cma")
> > Cc: Roman Gushchin <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Mike Kravetz <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > mm/hugetlb.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > index 57ece74e3aae..603aa854aa89 100644
> > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > @@ -2571,9 +2571,21 @@ static void __init
> hugetlb_hstate_alloc_pages(struct hstate *h)
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < h->max_huge_pages; ++i) {
> > if (hstate_is_gigantic(h)) {
> > - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA) && hugetlb_cma[0]) {
> > - pr_warn_once("HugeTLB: hugetlb_cma is enabled,
> > skip
> boot time allocation\n");
> > - break;
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA)) {
> > + int nid;
> > + bool cma_reserved = false;
> > +
> > + for_each_node_state(nid, N_ONLINE) {
> > + if (hugetlb_cma[nid]) {
> > + pr_warn_once("HugeTLB:
> > hugetlb_cma is
> reserved,"
> > + "skip boot time
> > allocation\n");
> > + cma_reserved = true;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (cma_reserved)
> > + break;
>
> It's a valid problem, and I like to see it fixed. But I wonder if it would be
> better
> to introduce a new helper bool hugetlb_cma_enabled()? And move both
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA)
> and hugetlb_cma[nid] checks there?
Yep. that would be more readable.
>
> Thank you!
Thanks
Barry
