Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/5] page_frag: unify gfp bits for order 3 page allocation

[Yunsheng Lin]

On 2024/2/1 21:16, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 19:37 +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> Currently there seems to be three page frag implementions
>> which all try to allocate order 3 page, if that fails, it
>> then fail back to allocate order 0 page, and each of them
>> all allow order 3 page allocation to fail under certain
>> condition by using specific gfp bits.
>>
>> The gfp bits for order 3 page allocation are different
>> between different implementation, __GFP_NOMEMALLOC is
>> or'd to forbid access to emergency reserves memory for
>> __page_frag_cache_refill(), but it is not or'd in other
>> implementions, __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is masked off to avoid
>> direct reclaim in skb_page_frag_refill(), but it is not
>> masked off in __page_frag_cache_refill().
>>
>> This patch unifies the gfp bits used between different
>> implementions by or'ing __GFP_NOMEMALLOC and masking off
>> __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM for order 3 page allocation to avoid
>> possible pressure for mm.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@xxxxxx>
>> CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/vhost/net.c | 2 +-
>>  mm/page_alloc.c     | 4 ++--
>>  net/core/sock.c     | 2 +-
>>  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> index f2ed7167c848..e574e21cc0ca 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> @@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ static bool vhost_net_page_frag_refill(struct vhost_net *net, unsigned int sz,
>>  		/* Avoid direct reclaim but allow kswapd to wake */
>>  		pfrag->page = alloc_pages((gfp & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) |
>>  					  __GFP_COMP | __GFP_NOWARN |
>> -					  __GFP_NORETRY,
>> +					  __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC,
>>  					  SKB_FRAG_PAGE_ORDER);
> 
>>  		if (likely(pfrag->page)) {
>>  			pfrag->size = PAGE_SIZE << SKB_FRAG_PAGE_ORDER;
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index c0f7e67c4250..636145c29f70 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -4685,8 +4685,8 @@ static struct page *__page_frag_cache_refill(struct page_frag_cache *nc,
>>  	gfp_t gfp = gfp_mask;
>>  
>>  #if (PAGE_SIZE < PAGE_FRAG_CACHE_MAX_SIZE)
>> -	gfp_mask |= __GFP_COMP | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY |
>> -		    __GFP_NOMEMALLOC;
>> +	gfp_mask = (gfp_mask & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) |  __GFP_COMP |
>> +		   __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC;
>>  	page = alloc_pages_node(NUMA_NO_NODE, gfp_mask,
>>  				PAGE_FRAG_CACHE_MAX_ORDER);
>>  	nc->size = page ? PAGE_FRAG_CACHE_MAX_SIZE : PAGE_SIZE;
>> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
>> index 88bf810394a5..8289a3d8c375 100644
>> --- a/net/core/sock.c
>> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
>> @@ -2919,7 +2919,7 @@ bool skb_page_frag_refill(unsigned int sz, struct page_frag *pfrag, gfp_t gfp)
>>  		/* Avoid direct reclaim but allow kswapd to wake */
>>  		pfrag->page = alloc_pages((gfp & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) |
>>  					  __GFP_COMP | __GFP_NOWARN |
>> -					  __GFP_NORETRY,
>> +					  __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC,
>>  					  SKB_FRAG_PAGE_ORDER);
> 
> This will prevent memory reserve usage when allocating order 3 pages,
> but not when allocating a single page as a fallback. Still different

More accurately, the above ensures memory reserve is always not used
for order 3 pages, whether memory reserve is used for order 0 pages
depending on original 'gfp' flags, if 'gfp' does not have __GFP_NOMEMALLOC
bit set, memory reserve may still be used  for order 0 pages.

> from the __page_frag_cache_refill() allocator - which never accesses
> the memory reserves.

I am not really sure I understand the above commemt.
The semantic is the same as skb_page_frag_refill() as explained above
as my understanding. Note that __page_frag_cache_refill() use 'gfp_mask'
for allocating order 3 pages and use the original 'gfp' for allocating
order 0 pages.

> 
> I'm unsure we want to propagate the __page_frag_cache_refill behavior
> here, the current behavior could be required by some systems.
> 
> It looks like this series still leave the skb_page_frag_refill()
> allocator alone, what about dropping this chunk, too? 

As explained above, I would prefer to keep it as it is as it seems
to be quite obvious that we can avoid possible pressure for mm by
not using memory reserve for order 3 pages as we have the fallback
for order 0 pages.

Please let me know if there is anything obvious I missed.

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Paolo
> 
> 
> .
>