On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 10:30:40PM +0000, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) > > Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 10:12 AM > > To: 'Roman Gushchin' <[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 > > > > > > > > > -----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); > > ... > > } > > > > And for a server, there are many memory slots. The best config would be > making every node have at least one DDR. But it isn't necessarily true, it > is totally up to the users. > > If we move hugetlb_cma_reserve() a bit later, we probably make hugetlb_cma > size > completely consistent by splitting it to nodes with memory rather than nodes > which are online: > > void __init bootmem_init(void) > { > ... > > arm64_numa_init(); > > /* > * must be done after arm64_numa_init() which calls numa_init() to > * initialize node_online_map that gets used in hugetlb_cma_reserve() > * while allocating required CMA size across online nodes. > */ > - #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES > - hugetlb_cma_reserve(PUD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT); > - #endif > > ... > > sparse_init(); > zone_sizes_init(min, max); > > + #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES > + hugetlb_cma_reserve(PUD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT); > + #endif > memblock_dump_all(); > } > > For x86, it could be done in similar way. Do you think it is worth to try?
It sounds like a good idea to me! Thanks.
