Re: [PATCH for v5.9] mm/page_alloc: handle a missing case for memalloc_nocma_{save/restore} APIs

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Tue Aug 25 2020 - 01:10:55 EST


On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:59:42 +0900 js1304@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
>
> memalloc_nocma_{save/restore} APIs can be used to skip page allocation
> on CMA area, but, there is a missing case and the page on CMA area could
> be allocated even if APIs are used. This patch handles this case to fix
> the potential issue.
>
> Missing case is an allocation from the pcplist. MIGRATE_MOVABLE pcplist
> could have the pages on CMA area so we need to skip it if ALLOC_CMA isn't
> specified.
>
> This patch implements this behaviour by checking allocated page from
> the pcplist rather than skipping an allocation from the pcplist entirely.
> Skipping the pcplist entirely would result in a mismatch between watermark
> check and actual page allocation. And, it requires to break current code
> layering that order-0 page is always handled by the pcplist. I'd prefer
> to avoid it so this patch uses different way to skip CMA page allocation
> from the pcplist.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -3341,6 +3341,22 @@ static struct page *rmqueue_pcplist(struct zone *preferred_zone,
> pcp = &this_cpu_ptr(zone->pageset)->pcp;
> list = &pcp->lists[migratetype];
> page = __rmqueue_pcplist(zone, migratetype, alloc_flags, pcp, list);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> + if (page) {
> + int mt = get_pcppage_migratetype(page);
> +
> + /*
> + * pcp could have the pages on CMA area and we need to skip it
> + * when !ALLOC_CMA. Free all pcplist and retry allocation.
> + */
> + if (is_migrate_cma(mt) && !(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA)) {
> + list_add(&page->lru, &pcp->lists[migratetype]);
> + pcp->count++;
> + free_pcppages_bulk(zone, pcp->count, pcp);
> + page = __rmqueue_pcplist(zone, migratetype, alloc_flags, pcp, list);
> + }
> + }
> +#endif
> if (page) {
> __count_zid_vm_events(PGALLOC, page_zonenum(page), 1);
> zone_statistics(preferred_zone, zone);

That's a bunch more code on a very hot path to serve an obscure feature
which has a single obscure callsite.

Can we instead put the burden on that callsite rather than upon
everyone? For (dumb) example, teach __gup_longterm_locked() to put the
page back if it's CMA and go get another one?