lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2] mm/page_alloc: Ensure that HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER is less than MAX_ORDER
Date
On 12.04.21 10:06, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> + linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> + linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
>
> On 4/12/21 9:18 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> pageblock_order must always be less than MAX_ORDER, otherwise it might lead
>> to an warning during boot. A similar problem got fixed on arm64 platform
>> with the commit 79cc2ed5a716 ("arm64/mm: Drop THP conditionality from
>> FORCE_MAX_ZONEORDER"). Assert the above condition before HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER
>> gets assigned as pageblock_order. This will help detect the problem earlier
>> on platforms where HUGETLB_PAGE_SIZE_VARIABLE is enabled.
>>
>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in V2:
>>
>> - Changed WARN_ON() to BUILD_BUG_ON() per David
>>
>> Changes in V1:
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mm/patch/1617947717-2424-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com/
>>
>> mm/page_alloc.c | 11 +++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index cfc72873961d..19283bff4bec 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -6875,10 +6875,17 @@ void __init set_pageblock_order(void)
>> if (pageblock_order)
>> return;
>>
>> - if (HPAGE_SHIFT > PAGE_SHIFT)
>> + if (HPAGE_SHIFT > PAGE_SHIFT) {
>> + /*
>> + * pageblock_order must always be less than
>> + * MAX_ORDER. So does HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER if
>> + * that is being assigned here.
>> + */
>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER >= MAX_ORDER);
>
> Unfortunately the build test fails on both the platforms (powerpc and ia64)
> which subscribe HUGETLB_PAGE_SIZE_VARIABLE and where this check would make
> sense. I some how overlooked the cross compile build failure that actually
> detected this problem.
>
> But wondering why this assert is not holding true ? and how these platforms
> do not see the warning during boot (or do they ?) at mm/vmscan.c:1092 like
> arm64 did.
>
> static int __fragmentation_index(unsigned int order, struct contig_page_info *info)
> {
> unsigned long requested = 1UL << order;
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(order >= MAX_ORDER))
> return 0;
> ....
>
> Can pageblock_order really exceed MAX_ORDER - 1 ?

Ehm, for now I was under the impression that such configurations
wouldn't exist.

And originally, HUGETLB_PAGE_SIZE_VARIABLE was introduced to handle
hugepage sizes that all *smaller* than MAX_ORDER - 1: See d9c234005227
("Do not depend on MAX_ORDER when grouping pages by mobility")


However, looking into init_cma_reserved_pageblock():

if (pageblock_order >= MAX_ORDER) {
i = pageblock_nr_pages;
...
}


But it's kind of weird, isn't it? Let's assume we have MAX_ORDER - 1
correspond to 4 MiB and pageblock_order correspond to 8 MiB.

Sure, we'd be grouping pages in 8 MiB chunks, however, we cannot even
allocate 8 MiB chunks via the buddy. So only alloc_contig_range() could
really grab them (IOW: gigantic pages).

Further, we have code like deferred_free_range(), where we end up
calling __free_pages_core()->...->__free_one_page() with
pageblock_order. Wouldn't we end up setting the buddy order to something
> MAX_ORDER -1 on that path?

Having pageblock_order > MAX_ORDER feels wrong and looks shaky.

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-12 11:03    [W:0.110 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site