Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v4

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 12/01/2016 03:24 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 02:41:29PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 12/01/2016 01:24 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> > Hmm I think that if this hits, we don't decrease count/increase nr_freed and
> > pcp->count will become wrong.
>
> Ok, I think you're right but I also think it's relatively trivial to fix
> with
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 94808f565f74..8777aefc1b8e 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1134,13 +1134,13 @@ static void free_pcppages_bulk(struct zone *zone, int count,
>  			if (unlikely(isolated_pageblocks))
>  				mt = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
>
> +			nr_freed += (1 << order);
> +			count -= (1 << order);
>  			if (bulkfree_pcp_prepare(page))
>  				continue;
>
>  			__free_one_page(page, page_to_pfn(page), zone, order, mt);
>  			trace_mm_page_pcpu_drain(page, order, mt);
> -			nr_freed += (1 << order);
> -			count -= (1 << order);
>  		} while (count > 0 && --batch_free && !list_empty(list));
>  	}
>  	spin_unlock(&zone->lock);
>
> > And if we are unlucky/doing full drain, all
> > lists will get empty, but as count stays e.g. 1, we loop forever on the
> > outer while()?
>
> Potentially yes. Granted the system is already in a bad state as pages
> are being freed in a bad or unknown state but we haven't halted the
> system for that in the past.
>
> > BTW, I think there's a similar problem (but not introduced by this patch) in
> > rmqueue_bulk() and its
> >
> >     if (unlikely(check_pcp_refill(page)))
> >             continue;
>
> Potentially yes. It's outside the scope of this patch but it needs
> fixing.
>
> If you agree with the above fix, I'll roll it into a v5 and append
> another patch for this issue.

Yeah, looks fine. Thanks.