Messages in this thread | | | From | David Hildenbrand <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2] mm/page_alloc: Ensure that HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER is less than MAX_ORDER | Date | Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:47:25 +0200 |
| |
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
| |