Re: [PATCH v9 0/8] stg mail -e --version=v9 \

[Michal Hocko]

On Wed 11-09-19 15:03:39, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 11.09.19 14:54, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 11-09-19 14:42:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 11.09.19 14:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> On Wed 11-09-19 14:19:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>> On Wed 11-09-19 08:08:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 01:36:19PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue 10-09-19 14:23:40, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>> We don't put any limitations on the allocator other then that it needs to
> >>>>>>> clean up the metadata on allocation, and that it cannot allocate a page
> >>>>>>> that is in the process of being reported since we pulled it from the
> >>>>>>> free_list. If the page is a "Reported" page then it decrements the
> >>>>>>> reported_pages count for the free_area and makes sure the page doesn't
> >>>>>>> exist in the "Boundary" array pointer value, if it does it moves the
> >>>>>>> "Boundary" since it is pulling the page.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is still a non-trivial limitation on the page allocation from an
> >>>>>> external code IMHO. I cannot give any explicit reason why an ordering on
> >>>>>> the free list might matter (well except for page shuffling which uses it
> >>>>>> to make physical memory pattern allocation more random) but the
> >>>>>> architecture seems hacky and dubious to be honest. It shoulds like the
> >>>>>> whole interface has been developed around a very particular and single
> >>>>>> purpose optimization.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I remember that there was an attempt to report free memory that provided
> >>>>>> a callback mechanism [1], which was much less intrusive to the internals
> >>>>>> of the allocator yet it should provide a similar functionality. Did you
> >>>>>> see that approach? How does this compares to it? Or am I completely off
> >>>>>> when comparing them?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1] mostly likely not the latest version of the patchset
> >>>>>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1502940416-42944-5-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Linus nacked that one. He thinks invoking callbacks with lots of
> >>>>> internal mm locks is too fragile.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would be really curious how much he would be happy about injecting
> >>>> other restrictions on the allocator like this patch proposes. This is
> >>>> more intrusive as it has a higher maintenance cost longterm IMHO.
> >>>
> >>> Btw. I do agree that callbacks with internal mm locks are not great
> >>> either. We do have a model for that in mmu_notifiers and it is something
> >>> I do consider PITA, on the other hand it is mostly sleepable part of the
> >>> interface which makes it the real pain. The above callback mechanism was
> >>> explicitly documented with restrictions and that the context is
> >>> essentially atomic with no access to particular struct pages and no
> >>> expensive operations possible. So in the end I've considered it
> >>> acceptably painful. Not that I want to override Linus' nack but if
> >>> virtualization usecases really require some form of reporting and no
> >>> other way to do that push people to invent even more interesting
> >>> approaches then we should simply give them/you something reasonable
> >>> and least intrusive to our internals.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The issue with "[PATCH v14 4/5] mm: support reporting free page blocks"
> >>  is that it cannot really handle the use case we have here if I am not
> >> wrong. While a page is getting processed by the hypervisor (e.g.
> >> MADV_DONTNEED), it must not get reused.
> > 
> > What prevents to use the callback to get a list of pfn ranges to work on
> > and then use something like start_isolate_page_range on the collected
> > pfn ranges to make sure nobody steals pages from under your feet, do
> > your thing and drop the isolated state afterwards.
> > 
> > I am saying somethig like because you wouldn't really want a generic
> > has_unmovable_pages but rather
> >                 if (!page_ref_count(page)) {
> >                         if (PageBuddy(page))
> >                                 iter += (1 << page_order(page)) - 1;
> >                         continue;
> >                 }
> > subset of it.
> > 
> 
> Something slightly similar is being performed by Nitesh's patch set. On
> every free of a certain granularity, he records it in the bitmap. These
> bits are "hints of free pages".
> 
> A thread then walks over the bitmap and tries to allocate the "hints".
> If the pages were already reused, the bit is silently cleared.
> 
> Instead of allocating/freeing, we could only try to isolate the
> pageblock, then test if free. (One of the usual issues to work around is
> MAX_ORDER-1 crossing pageblocks, that might need special care)

OK, cool that I have reinvented the wheel ;). Allocation is indeed not
necessary as long as pages are isolated because nobody will allocate
them.
 
> I think you should have a look at the rough idea of Nitesh's patch set
> to see if something like that is going into a better direction. The
> bitmap part is in place to do bulk reporting and avoid duplicate reports.

Let's see how much time I can find for that in my endless inbox whack a mole.
 
> I think main points we want (and what I am missing from callback idea
> being discussed) are
> 1. Do bulk reporting only when a certain threshold is reached

Is a time based approach too coarse?

> 2. Report only bigger granularities (especially, avoid THP splits in the
> hypervisor - >= 2MB proofed to be effective)

the callback has supported order based scan in some of its iteration.

> 3. Avoid reporting what has just been reported.

Is the overhead of checking a pfn range in a bitmask that much of an
overhead to really care?

> 4. Continuously report, not the "one time report everything" approach.

So you mean the allocator reporting this rather than an external code to
poll right? I do not know, how much this is nice to have than must have?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs