Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Memory hotplug/hotremove at subsection size

[David Hildenbrand]

On 06.05.21 17:31, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.05.21 17:26, Zi Yan wrote:
> > From: Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This patchset tries to remove the restriction on memory hotplug/hotremove
> > granularity, which is always greater or equal to memory section size[1].
> > With the patchset, kernel is able to online/offline memory at a size independent
> > of memory section size, as small as 2MB (the subsection size).
>
> ... which doesn't make any sense as we can only online/offline whole
> memory block devices.
>
> > The motivation is to increase MAX_ORDER of the buddy allocator and pageblock
> > size without increasing memory hotplug/hotremove granularity at the same time,
>
> Gah, no. Please no. No.
>
> > so that the kernel can allocator 1GB pages using buddy allocator and utilizes
> > existing pageblock based anti-fragmentation, paving the road for 1GB THP
> > support[2].
>
> Not like this, please no.
>
> > The patchset utilizes the existing subsection support[3] and changes the
> > section size alignment checks to subsection size alignment checks. There are
> > also changes to pageblock code to support partial pageblocks, when pageblock
> > size is increased along with MAX_ORDER. Increasing pageblock size can enable
> > kernel to utilize existing anti-fragmentation mechanism for gigantic page
> > allocations.
>
> Please not like this.
>
> > The last patch increases SECTION_SIZE_BITS to demonstrate the use of memory
> > hotplug/hotremove subsection, but is not intended to be merged as is. It is
> > there in case one wants to try this out and will be removed during the final
> > submission.
> >
> > Feel free to give suggestions and comments. I am looking forward to your
> > feedback.
>
> Please not like this.

And just to be clear (I think I mentioned this already to you?): Nack to 
increasing the section size. Nack to increasing the pageblock order. 
Please find different ways to group on gigantic-pages level. There are 
alternative ideas floating around.

Semi-nack to increasing MAX_ORDER. I first want to see 
alloc_contig_range() be able to fully and cleanly handle allocations < 
MAX_ORDER in all cases (especially !CMA and !ZONE_MOVABLE) before we go 
down that path.

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb