Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] mm/hugetlb: remove checking hstate_is_gigantic() in return_unused_surplus_pages()

[HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:25:13AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 06/27/22 06:02, HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 12:11:07PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > On 06/24/22 08:34, HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 04:15:19PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> > > > > On 2022/6/24 16:03, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:25:48AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> > > > > >> On 2022/6/24 7:51, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > > >>> From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> IIUC it might be better to do the below check:
> > > > > >> 	/*
> > > > > >> 	 * Cannot return gigantic pages currently if runtime gigantic page
> > > > > >> 	 * allocation is not supported.
> > > > > >> 	 */
> > > > > >> 	if (hstate_is_gigantic(h) && !gigantic_page_runtime_supported())
> > > > > >> 		goto out;
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The change looks good to me. However, the comments above is unnecessary
> > > > > > since gigantic_page_runtime_supported() is straightforward.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Agree. The comments can be removed.
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you, both. Adding !gigantic_page_runtime_supported without comment
> > > > makes sense to me.
> > > 
> > > The change above makes sense to me.  However, ...
> > > 
> > > If we make the change above, will we have the same strange situation described
> > > in the commit message when !gigantic_page_runtime_supported() is true?
> > > 
> > > IIUC, !gigantic_page_runtime_supported implies that gigantic hugetlb
> > > pages can not be allocated or freed at run time.  They can only be
> > > allocated at boot time.  So, there should NEVER be surplus gigantic
> > > pages if !gigantic_page_runtime_supported().
> > 
> > I have the same understanding as the above.
> > 
> > >  To avoid this situation,
> > > perhaps we should change set_max_huge_pages as follows (not tested)?
> > 
> > The suggested diff looks clearer about what it does, so I'd like to take it
> > in the next version.  Then, what do we do on the "if (hstate_if_gigantic())"
> > check in return_unused_surplus_pages in the original suggestion?  Should it
> > be kept as is, or removed, or checked with !gigantic_page_runtime_supported()?
> > I guess that the new checks prevent calling return_unused_surplus_pages()
> > during pool shrinking, so the check seems not necessary any more.
> 
> My first thought was to keep the check in return_unused_surplus_pages() as it
> is called in other code paths.  However, it SHOULD only try to free surplus
> hugetlb pages.  With the modifications to set_max_huge_pages we will not
> have any surplus gigantic pages if !gigantic_page_runtime_supported, so
> the check can be removed.
> 
> Also note that we never try to dynamically allocate surplus gigantic pages.
> This also is left over from the time when we could not easily allocate a
> gigantic page at runtime.  It would not surprise me if someone found a use
> case to ease this restriction in the future.  Especially so if 1G THP support
> is ever added.  If this happens, the check would be necessary and I would
> guess that it would not be added.
> 
> Sorry for thinking our loud!!!  Although not necessary, it 'might' be a good
> idea to leave the check because it would be overlooked if dynamic allocation
> of gigantic surplus pages is ever added.  I do not have a strong opinion.

OK, so let's keep the check.

> 
> P.S. This also reminds me that a similar check should be added to the
> demote hugetlb code path.  It would be bad if !gigantic_page_runtime_supported
> and we demoted a gigantic page into numerous non-gigantic pages.  I will
> send a patch.

Sounds nice.

Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi