On Wed 08-07-20 09:41:06, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 08-07-20 16:16:02, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:22:31PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > On 7/7/20 9:44 AM, js1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo....@lge.com>
> > > >
> > > > new_non_cma_page() in gup.c which try to allocate migration target page
> > > > requires to allocate the new page that is not on the CMA area.
> > > > new_non_cma_page() implements it by removing __GFP_MOVABLE flag. This
> > > > way
> > > > works well for THP page or normal page but not for hugetlb page.
> > > >
> > > > hugetlb page allocation process consists of two steps. First is
> > > > dequeing
> > > > from the pool. Second is, if there is no available page on the queue,
> > > > allocating from the page allocator.
> > > >
> > > > new_non_cma_page() can control allocation from the page allocator by
> > > > specifying correct gfp flag. However, dequeing cannot be controlled
> > > > until
> > > > now, so, new_non_cma_page() skips dequeing completely. It is a
> > > > suboptimal
> > > > since new_non_cma_page() cannot utilize hugetlb pages on the queue so
> > > > this
> > > > patch tries to fix this situation.
> > > >
> > > > This patch makes the deque function on hugetlb CMA aware and skip CMA
> > > > pages if newly added skip_cma argument is passed as true.
> > >
> > > Hmm, can't you instead change dequeue_huge_page_node_exact() to test the
> > > PF_
> > > flag and avoid adding bool skip_cma everywhere?
> >
> > Okay! Please check following patch.
> > >
> > > I think that's what Michal suggested [1] except he said "the code already
> > > does
> > > by memalloc_nocma_{save,restore} API". It needs extending a bit though,
> > > AFAICS.
> > > __gup_longterm_locked() indeed does the save/restore, but restore comes
> > > before
> > > check_and_migrate_cma_pages() and thus new_non_cma_page() is called, so an
> > > adjustment is needed there, but that's all?
> > >
> > > Hm the adjustment should be also done because save/restore is done around
> > > __get_user_pages_locked(), but check_and_migrate_cma_pages() also calls
> > > __get_user_pages_locked(), and that call not being between nocma save and
> > > restore is thus also a correctness issue?
> >
> > Simply, I call memalloc_nocma_{save,restore} in new_non_cma_page(). It
> > would not cause any problem.
>
> I believe a proper fix is the following. The scope is really defined for
> FOLL_LONGTERM pins and pushing it inside check_and_migrate_cma_pages
> will solve the problem as well but it imho makes more sense to do it in
> the caller the same way we do for any others.
>
> Fixes: 9a4e9f3b2d73 ("mm: update get_user_pages_longterm to migrate pages
> allocated from CMA region")
>
> I am not sure this is worth backporting to stable yet.
Should I post it as a separate patch do you plan to include this into your next
version?
>
> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> index de9e36262ccb..75980dd5a2fc 100644
> --- a/mm/gup.c
> +++ b/mm/gup.c
> @@ -1794,7 +1794,6 @@ static long __gup_longterm_locked(struct task_struct
> *tsk,
> vmas_tmp, NULL, gup_flags);
>
> if (gup_flags & FOLL_LONGTERM) {
> - memalloc_nocma_restore(flags);
> if (rc < 0)
> goto out;
>
> @@ -1802,11 +1801,13 @@ static long __gup_longterm_locked(struct task_struct
> *tsk,
> for (i = 0; i < rc; i++)
> put_page(pages[i]);
> rc = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + memalloc_nocma_restore(flags);
> goto out;
> }
>
> rc = check_and_migrate_cma_pages(tsk, mm, start, rc, pages,
> vmas_tmp, gup_flags);
> + memalloc_nocma_restore(flags);
> }
>
> out:
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
