lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] mm: hotplug: implement non-movable version of get_user_pages() to kill long-time pin pages
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 02:18:42PM +0800, Lin Feng wrote:
>
>
> On 02/05/2013 01:25 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hi Lin,
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:42:48PM +0800, Lin Feng wrote:
> >> Hi Minchan,
> >>
> >> On 02/05/2013 08:58 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 06:04:06PM +0800, Lin Feng wrote:
> >>>> Currently get_user_pages() always tries to allocate pages from movable zone,
> >>>> as discussed in thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/29/69, in some case users
> >>>> of get_user_pages() is easy to pin user pages for a long time(for now we found
> >>>> that pages pinned as aio ring pages is such case), which is fatal for memory
> >>>> hotplug/remove framework.
> >>>>
> >>>> So the 1st patch introduces a new library function called
> >>>> get_user_pages_non_movable() to pin pages only from zone non-movable in memory.
> >>>> It's a wrapper of get_user_pages() but it makes sure that all pages come from
> >>>> non-movable zone via additional page migration.
> >>>>
> >>>> The 2nd patch gets around the aio ring pages can't be migrated bug caused by
> >>>> get_user_pages() via using the new function. It only works when configed with
> >>>> CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE, otherwise it uses the old version of get_user_pages().
> >>>
> >>> CMA has same issue but the problem is the driver developers or any subsystem
> >>> using GUP can't know their pages is in CMA area or not in advance.
> >>> So all of client of GUP should use GUP_NM to work them with CMA/MEMORY_HOTPLUG well?
> >>> Even some driver module in embedded side doesn't open their source code.
> >> Yes, it somehow depends on the users of GUP. In MEMORY_HOTPLUG case, as for most users
> >> of GUP, they will release the pinned pages immediately and to such users they should get
> >> a good performance, using the old style interface is a smart way. And we had better just
> >> deal with the cases we have to by using the new interface.
> >
> > Hmm, I think you can't make sure most of user for MEMORY_HOTPLUG will release pinned pages
> > immediately. Because MEMORY_HOTPLUG could be used for embedded system for reducing power
> > by PASR and some drivers in embedded could use GUP anytime and anywhere. They can't know
> > in advance they will use pinned pages long time or release in short time because it depends
> > on some event like user's response which is very not predetermined.
> > So for solving it, we can add some WARN_ON in CMA/MEMORY_HOTPLUG part just in case of
> > failing migration by page count and then, investigate they are really using GUP and it's
> > REALLY a culprit. If so, yell to them "Please use GUP_NM instead"?
> >
> > Yes. it could be done but it would be rather trobulesome job.
> Yes WARN_ON may be easy while troubleshooting for finding the immigrate-able page is
> a big job.
> If we want to kill all the potential immigrate-able pages caused by GUP we'd better use the
> *non_movable* version of GUP.
> But in some server environment we want to keep the performance but also want to use hotremove
> feature in case. Maybe patch the place as we need is a trade off for such support.
>
> Mel also said in the last discussion:
>
> On 11/30/2012 07:00 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:55:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> Well, that's a fairly low-level implementation detail. A more typical
> >> approach would be to add a new get_user_pages_non_movable() or such.
> >> That would probably have the same signature as get_user_pages(), with
> >> one additional argument. Then get_user_pages() becomes a one-line
> >> wrapper which passes in a particular value of that argument.
> >>
> >
> > That is going in the direction that all pinned pages become MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE
> > allocations. That will impact THP availability by increasing the number
> > of MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE blocks that exist and it would hit every user --
> > not just those that care about ZONE_MOVABLE.
> >
> > I'm likely to NAK such a patch if it's only about node hot-remove because
> > it's much more of a corner case than wanting to use THP.
> >
> > I would prefer if get_user_pages() checked if the page it was about to
> > pin was in ZONE_MOVABLE and if so, migrate it at that point before it's
> > pinned. It'll be expensive but will guarantee ZONE_MOVABLE availability
> > if that's what they want. The CMA people might also want to take
> > advantage of this if the page happened to be in the MIGRATE_CMA
> > pageblock.
> >
>
> So it may not a good idea that we all fall into calling the *non_movable* version of
> GUP when CONFIG_MIGRATE_ISOLATE is on. What do you think?

Frankly speaking, I can't understand Mel's comment.
AFAIUC, he said GUP checks the page before get_page and if the page is movable zone,
then migrate it out of movable zone and get_page again.
That's exactly what I want. It doesn't introduce GUP_NM.
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-05 09:21    [W:0.094 / U:2.592 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site