Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1300725 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/compaction: speed up pageblock_pfn_to_page() when zone is contiguous

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/compaction: speed up pageblock_pfn_to_page() when  zone is contiguous Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> - 2016-01-04 13:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/compaction: speed up pageblock_pfn_to_page() when  zone is contiguous Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> - 2016-01-08 03:50 +0100

#1300725 — Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/compaction: speed up pageblock_pfn_to_page() when zone is contiguous

On 12/23/2015 07:57 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>> What are the cases where pageblock_pfn_to_page() is used for a subset of
>>> the pageblock and the result would be problematic for compaction?  I.e.,
>>> do we actually care to use pageblocks that are not contiguous at all?
>>
>> The problematic pageblocks are those that have pages from more than one zone in
>> them, so we just skip them. Supposedly that can only happen by switching once
>> between two zones somewhere in the middle of the pageblock, so it's sufficient
>> to check first and last pfn and compare their zones. So using
>> pageblock_pfn_to_page() on a subset from compaction would be wrong. Holes (==no
>> pages) within pageblock is a different thing checked by pfn_valid_within()
>> (#defined out on archs where such holes cannot happen) when scanning the block.
>>
>> That's why I'm not entirely happy with how the patch conflates both the
>> first/last pfn's zone checks and pfn_valid_within() checks. Yes, a fully
>> contiguous zone does *imply* that pageblock_pfn_to_page() doesn't have to check
>> first/last pfn for a matching zone. But it's not *equality*. And any (now just
>> *potential*) user of pageblock_pfn_to_page() with pfn's different than
>> first/last pfn of a pageblock is likely wrong.
>
> Now, I understand your concern. What makes me mislead is that
> 3 of 4 callers to pageblock_pfn_to_page() in compaction.c could call it with
> non-pageblock boundary pfn.

Oh, I thought you were talking about potential new callers, now that the 
function was exported. So let's see about the existing callers:

isolate_migratepages() - first pfn can be non-boundary when restarting 
from a middle of pageblock, that's true. But it means the pageblock has 
already passed the check in previous call where it was boundary, so it's 
safe. Worst can happen that the restarting pfn will be in a 
intra-pageblock hole so pageblock will be falsely skipped over.

isolate_freepages() - always boundary AFAICS?

isolate_migratepages_range() and isolate_freepages_range() - yeah the 
CMA parts say it doesn't have to be aligned, I don't know about actual users

> Maybe, they should be fixed first.

It would be probably best, even for isolate_migratepages() for 
consistency and less-surprisibility.

> Then, yes. I can
> separate first/last pfn's zone checks and pfn_valid_within() checks.
> If then, would you be entirely happy? :)

Maybe, if the patch also made me a coffee :P

> Thanks.

Thanks!

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1304144

On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 01:38:02PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 12/23/2015 07:57 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >>>What are the cases where pageblock_pfn_to_page() is used for a subset of
> >>>the pageblock and the result would be problematic for compaction?  I.e.,
> >>>do we actually care to use pageblocks that are not contiguous at all?
> >>
> >>The problematic pageblocks are those that have pages from more than one zone in
> >>them, so we just skip them. Supposedly that can only happen by switching once
> >>between two zones somewhere in the middle of the pageblock, so it's sufficient
> >>to check first and last pfn and compare their zones. So using
> >>pageblock_pfn_to_page() on a subset from compaction would be wrong. Holes (==no
> >>pages) within pageblock is a different thing checked by pfn_valid_within()
> >>(#defined out on archs where such holes cannot happen) when scanning the block.
> >>
> >>That's why I'm not entirely happy with how the patch conflates both the
> >>first/last pfn's zone checks and pfn_valid_within() checks. Yes, a fully
> >>contiguous zone does *imply* that pageblock_pfn_to_page() doesn't have to check
> >>first/last pfn for a matching zone. But it's not *equality*. And any (now just
> >>*potential*) user of pageblock_pfn_to_page() with pfn's different than
> >>first/last pfn of a pageblock is likely wrong.
> >
> >Now, I understand your concern. What makes me mislead is that
> >3 of 4 callers to pageblock_pfn_to_page() in compaction.c could call it with
> >non-pageblock boundary pfn.
> 
> Oh, I thought you were talking about potential new callers, now that
> the function was exported. So let's see about the existing callers:
> 
> isolate_migratepages() - first pfn can be non-boundary when
> restarting from a middle of pageblock, that's true. But it means the
> pageblock has already passed the check in previous call where it was
> boundary, so it's safe. Worst can happen that the restarting pfn
> will be in a intra-pageblock hole so pageblock will be falsely
> skipped over.

Yes, you are right.

> 
> isolate_freepages() - always boundary AFAICS?
> 
> isolate_migratepages_range() and isolate_freepages_range() - yeah
> the CMA parts say it doesn't have to be aligned, I don't know about
> actual users

CMA can call them with non-pageblock aligned pfn but checking
pageblock_pfn_to_page() with pageblock aligned pfn will be safe because
there is a constraint for CMA region that it is aligned with pageblock
and it should be in a single zone. Even, it has checked pfn_valid()
for all pfn during initialization step.

> >Maybe, they should be fixed first.
> 
> It would be probably best, even for isolate_migratepages() for
> consistency and less-surprisibility.

Yes. Without this fix, if only pageblock aligned pfn is checked for
cached hole information, optimized pageblock_pfn_to_page() would
cause error when meeting intra-pageblock hole in isolate_migratepages().

> >Then, yes. I can
> >separate first/last pfn's zone checks and pfn_valid_within() checks.
> >If then, would you be entirely happy? :)
> 
> Maybe, if the patch also made me a coffee :P

I hope so. :)

Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web