Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/19] mm/sparsemem: Use alloc_table() for table allocations

[Mike Rapoport]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 06:25:23PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-08-31 at 11:55 +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 04:59:19PM -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> <trim> 
> > > -static void * __meminit vmemmap_alloc_block_zero(unsigned long
> > > size, int node)
> > > +static void * __meminit vmemmap_alloc_table(int node)
> > >  {
> > > -	void *p = vmemmap_alloc_block(size, node);
> > > +	void *p;
> > > +	if (slab_is_available()) {
> > > +		struct page *page = alloc_table_node(GFP_KERNEL |
> > > __GFP_ZERO, node);
> > 
> > This change removes __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL|__GFP_NOWARN from the
> > original gfp
> > vmemmap_alloc_block() used.
> Oh, yea good point. Hmm, I guess grouped pages could be aware of that
> flag too. Would be a small addition, but it starts to grow
> unfortunately.
> 
> > Not sure __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL is really needed in
> > vmemmap_alloc_block_zero()
> > at the first place, though.
> Looks like due to a real issue:
> 055e4fd96e95b0eee0d92fd54a26be7f0d3bcad0

I believe the issue was with memory map blocks rather than with page
tables, but since sparse-vmemmap uses the same vmemmap_alloc_block() for
both, the GFP flag got stick with both.

I'm not really familiar with reclaim internals to say if
__GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL would help much for order-0 allocation.

Vlastimil, can you comment on this?
 
> I think it should not affect PKS tables for now, so maybe I can make
> separate logic instead. I'll look into it. Thanks.
> > 
> > More broadly, maybe it makes sense to split boot time and memory
> > hotplug
> > paths and use pxd_alloc() for the latter.
> > 
> > > +
> > > +		if (!page)
> > > +			return NULL;
> > > +		return page_address(page);
> > > +	}
> > >  
> > > +	p = __earlyonly_bootmem_alloc(node, PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE,
> > > __pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS));
> > 
> > Opportunistically rename to __earlyonly_memblock_alloc()? ;-)
> > 
> Heh, I can. Just grepping, there are several other instances of
> foo_bootmem() only calling foo_memblock() pattern scattered about. Or
> maybe I'm missing the distinction.

Heh, I didn't do s/bootmem/memblock/g, so foo_bootmem() are reminders we
had bootmem allocator once.
Maybe it's a good time to remove them :)
 
> <trim>

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.