RE: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: split hugetlb_cma in nodes with memory

2020-07-07 Thread Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)


> -Original Message-
> From: Anshuman Khandual [mailto:anshuman.khand...@arm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 4:18 PM
> To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) ;
> a...@linux-foundation.org
> Cc: x...@kernel.org; linux...@kvack.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> Linuxarm ; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org;
> Roman Gushchin ; Catalin Marinas
> ; Will Deacon ; Thomas Gleixner
> ; Ingo Molnar ; Borislav Petkov
> ; H . Peter Anvin ; Mike Kravetz
> ; Mike Rapoport ; Jonathan
> Cameron 
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: split hugetlb_cma in nodes with memory
> 
> Hello Barry,
> 
> On 07/08/2020 05:53 AM, Barry Song wrote:
> > Rather than splitting huge_cma in online nodes, it is better to do it in
> > nodes with memory.
> 
> Right, it makes sense to avoid nodes without memory, hence loosing portions
> of CMA reservation intended for HugeTLB. N_MEMORY is better than
> N_ONLINE
> and will help avoid this situation.

Thanks for taking a look, Anshuman.

> 
> > For an ARM64 server with four numa nodes and only node0 has memory. If I
> > set hugetlb_cma=4G in bootargs,
> >
> > without this patch, I got the below printk:
> > hugetlb_cma: reserve 4096 MiB, up to 1024 MiB per node
> > hugetlb_cma: reserved 1024 MiB on node 0
> > hugetlb_cma: reservation failed: err -12, node 1
> > hugetlb_cma: reservation failed: err -12, node 2
> > hugetlb_cma: reservation failed: err -12, node 3
> 
> As expected.
> 
> >
> > hugetlb_cma size is broken once the system has nodes without memory.
> 
> I would not say that it is 'broken'. It is just not optimal but still works
> as designed.
> 
> >
> > With this patch, I got the below printk:
> > hugetlb_cma: reserve 4096 MiB, up to 4096 MiB per node
> > hugetlb_cma: reserved 4096 MiB on node 0
> 
> As expected, the per node CMA reservation quota has changed from
> N_ONLINE
> to N_MEMORY.
> 
> >
> > So this patch fixes the broken hugetlb_cma size on arm64.
> 
> There is nothing arm64 specific here. A platform where N_ONLINE !=
> N_MEMORY
> i.e with some nodes without memory when CMA reservation gets called, will
> have this problem.

Agreed. one fact is that right now only x86 and arm64 are calling 
hugetlb_cma_reserve().
So I don't know how eager other platforms need this function.

> 
> >
> > Jonathan Cameron tested this patch on x86 platform. Jonathan figured out
> x86
> > is much different with arm64. hugetlb_cma size has never broken on x86.
> > On arm64 all nodes are marked online at the same time. On x86, only
> > nodes with memory are initially marked as online:
> > initmem_init()->x86_numa_init()->numa_init()->
> > numa_register_memblks()->alloc_node_data()->node_set_online()
> > So at time of the existing cma setup call only the memory containing nodes
> > are online. The other nodes are brought up much later.
> 
> The problem is always there if N_ONLINE != N_MEMORY but in this case, it
> is just hidden because N_ONLINE happen to match N_MEMORY during the
> boot
> process when hugetlb_cma_reserve() gets called.

Yes. Exactly.

> 
> >
> > Thus, the change is simply to fix ARM64.  A change is needed to x86 only
> > because the inherent assumptions in cma_hugetlb_reserve() have changed.
> 
> cma_hugetlb_reserve() will now scan over N_MEMORY and hence expects all
> platforms to have N_MEMORY initialized properly before calling it. This
> needs to be well documented for the hugetlb_cma_reserve() function along
> with it's call sites.
> 

Yep. will document this.

> >
> > Fixes: cf11e85fc08c ("mm: hugetlb: optionally allocate gigantic hugepages
> using cma")
> 
> I would not call this a "Fix". The current code still works, though in
> a sub optimal manner.

Do you think it is worth linux-stable? For example, is it better for this 
optimal manner
to be in 5.7 and 5.8? or we have this patch in 5.9-rc1?

To me, I would prefer 5.7 and 5.8 users can still have a hugetlb cma size which 
is consistent
with the bootargs.

> 
> > Cc: Roman Gushchin 
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas 
> > Cc: Will Deacon 
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner 
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar 
> > Cc: Borislav Petkov 
> > Cc: H. Peter Anvin 
> > Cc: Mike Kravetz 
> > Cc: Mike Rapoport 
> > Cc: Andrew Morton 
> > Cc: Anshuman Khandual 
> > Cc: Jonathan Cameron 
> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song 
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/mm/init.c| 18 +-
> >  arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 13 ++---
> >  mm/hugetlb.c|  4 ++--
> >  3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> &g

Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: split hugetlb_cma in nodes with memory

2020-07-07 Thread Anshuman Khandual
Hello Barry,

On 07/08/2020 05:53 AM, Barry Song wrote:
> Rather than splitting huge_cma in online nodes, it is better to do it in
> nodes with memory.

Right, it makes sense to avoid nodes without memory, hence loosing portions
of CMA reservation intended for HugeTLB. N_MEMORY is better than N_ONLINE
and will help avoid this situation.

> For an ARM64 server with four numa nodes and only node0 has memory. If I
> set hugetlb_cma=4G in bootargs,
> 
> without this patch, I got the below printk:
> hugetlb_cma: reserve 4096 MiB, up to 1024 MiB per node
> hugetlb_cma: reserved 1024 MiB on node 0
> hugetlb_cma: reservation failed: err -12, node 1
> hugetlb_cma: reservation failed: err -12, node 2
> hugetlb_cma: reservation failed: err -12, node 3

As expected.

> 
> hugetlb_cma size is broken once the system has nodes without memory.

I would not say that it is 'broken'. It is just not optimal but still works
as designed.

> 
> With this patch, I got the below printk:
> hugetlb_cma: reserve 4096 MiB, up to 4096 MiB per node
> hugetlb_cma: reserved 4096 MiB on node 0

As expected, the per node CMA reservation quota has changed from N_ONLINE
to N_MEMORY.

> 
> So this patch fixes the broken hugetlb_cma size on arm64.

There is nothing arm64 specific here. A platform where N_ONLINE != N_MEMORY
i.e with some nodes without memory when CMA reservation gets called, will
have this problem.

> 
> Jonathan Cameron tested this patch on x86 platform. Jonathan figured out x86
> is much different with arm64. hugetlb_cma size has never broken on x86.
> On arm64 all nodes are marked online at the same time. On x86, only
> nodes with memory are initially marked as online:
> initmem_init()->x86_numa_init()->numa_init()->
> numa_register_memblks()->alloc_node_data()->node_set_online()
> So at time of the existing cma setup call only the memory containing nodes
> are online. The other nodes are brought up much later.

The problem is always there if N_ONLINE != N_MEMORY but in this case, it
is just hidden because N_ONLINE happen to match N_MEMORY during the boot
process when hugetlb_cma_reserve() gets called.

> 
> Thus, the change is simply to fix ARM64.  A change is needed to x86 only
> because the inherent assumptions in cma_hugetlb_reserve() have changed.

cma_hugetlb_reserve() will now scan over N_MEMORY and hence expects all
platforms to have N_MEMORY initialized properly before calling it. This
needs to be well documented for the hugetlb_cma_reserve() function along
with it's call sites.

> 
> Fixes: cf11e85fc08c ("mm: hugetlb: optionally allocate gigantic hugepages 
> using cma")

I would not call this a "Fix". The current code still works, though in
a sub optimal manner.

> Cc: Roman Gushchin 
> Cc: Catalin Marinas 
> Cc: Will Deacon 
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner 
> Cc: Ingo Molnar 
> Cc: Borislav Petkov 
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin 
> Cc: Mike Kravetz 
> Cc: Mike Rapoport 
> Cc: Andrew Morton 
> Cc: Anshuman Khandual 
> Cc: Jonathan Cameron 
> Signed-off-by: Barry Song 
> ---
>  arch/arm64/mm/init.c| 18 +-
>  arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 13 ++---
>  mm/hugetlb.c|  4 ++--
>  3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> index 1e93cfc7c47a..f6090ef6812b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> @@ -420,15 +420,6 @@ void __init bootmem_init(void)
>  
>   arm64_numa_init();
>  
> - /*
> -  * must be done after arm64_numa_init() which calls numa_init() to
> -  * initialize node_online_map that gets used in hugetlb_cma_reserve()
> -  * while allocating required CMA size across online nodes.
> -  */
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES
> - hugetlb_cma_reserve(PUD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT);
> -#endif
> -
>   /*
>* Sparsemem tries to allocate bootmem in memory_present(), so must be
>* done after the fixed reservations.
> @@ -438,6 +429,15 @@ void __init bootmem_init(void)
>   sparse_init();
>   zone_sizes_init(min, max);
>  
> + /*
> +  * must be done after zone_sizes_init() which calls node_set_state() to
> +  * setup node_states[N_MEMORY] that gets used in hugetlb_cma_reserve()
> +  * while allocating required CMA size across nodes with memory.
> +  */

Needs better wording here, in particular a reference to free_area_init()
that updates N_MEMORY via node_set_state(). Also mention the fact that
now hugetlb_cma_reserve() scans over N_MEMORY nodemask and hence expects
the platforms to have a properly initialized one.

> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES
> + hugetlb_cma_reserve(PUD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT);
> +#endif
> +
>   memblock_dump_all();
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index a3767e74c758..fdb3a934b6c6 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -1164,9 +1164,6 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
>   initmem_init();
>   dma_contiguous_reserve(max_pfn_mapped