Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] mm/hugetlb: remove checking hstate_is_gigantic() in return_unused_surplus_pages()

[Miaohe Lin]

On 2022/6/28 1:25, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 06/27/22 06:02, HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 12:11:07PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> On 06/24/22 08:34, HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 04:15:19PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>>> On 2022/6/24 16:03, Muchun Song wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:25:48AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022/6/24 7:51, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IIUC it might be better to do the below check:
>>>>>>> 	/*
>>>>>>> 	 * Cannot return gigantic pages currently if runtime gigantic page
>>>>>>> 	 * allocation is not supported.
>>>>>>> 	 */
>>>>>>> 	if (hstate_is_gigantic(h) && !gigantic_page_runtime_supported())
>>>>>>> 		goto out;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The change looks good to me. However, the comments above is unnecessary
>>>>>> since gigantic_page_runtime_supported() is straightforward.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree. The comments can be removed.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, both. Adding !gigantic_page_runtime_supported without comment
>>>> makes sense to me.
>>>
>>> The change above makes sense to me.  However, ...
>>>
>>> If we make the change above, will we have the same strange situation described
>>> in the commit message when !gigantic_page_runtime_supported() is true?
>>>
>>> IIUC, !gigantic_page_runtime_supported implies that gigantic hugetlb
>>> pages can not be allocated or freed at run time.  They can only be
>>> allocated at boot time.  So, there should NEVER be surplus gigantic
>>> pages if !gigantic_page_runtime_supported().
>>
>> I have the same understanding as the above.
>>
>>>  To avoid this situation,
>>> perhaps we should change set_max_huge_pages as follows (not tested)?
>>
>> The suggested diff looks clearer about what it does, so I'd like to take it
>> in the next version.  Then, what do we do on the "if (hstate_if_gigantic())"
>> check in return_unused_surplus_pages in the original suggestion?  Should it
>> be kept as is, or removed, or checked with !gigantic_page_runtime_supported()?
>> I guess that the new checks prevent calling return_unused_surplus_pages()
>> during pool shrinking, so the check seems not necessary any more.
> 
> My first thought was to keep the check in return_unused_surplus_pages() as it
> is called in other code paths.  However, it SHOULD only try to free surplus
> hugetlb pages.  With the modifications to set_max_huge_pages we will not
> have any surplus gigantic pages if !gigantic_page_runtime_supported, so
> the check can be removed.
> 
> Also note that we never try to dynamically allocate surplus gigantic pages.
> This also is left over from the time when we could not easily allocate a
> gigantic page at runtime.  It would not surprise me if someone found a use
> case to ease this restriction in the future.  Especially so if 1G THP support
> is ever added.  If this happens, the check would be necessary and I would
> guess that it would not be added.
> 
> Sorry for thinking our loud!!!  Although not necessary, it 'might' be a good
> idea to leave the check because it would be overlooked if dynamic allocation
> of gigantic surplus pages is ever added.  I do not have a strong opinion.
> 
> P.S. This also reminds me that a similar check should be added to the
> demote hugetlb code path.  It would be bad if !gigantic_page_runtime_supported
> and we demoted a gigantic page into numerous non-gigantic pages.  I will
> send a patch.

Out-of-topic
There're some places check "if (hstate_is_gigantic(h))" while others check
"if (hstate_is_gigantic(h) && !gigantic_page_runtime_supported())". Should
we make it explicit in some manner when gigantic_page_runtime_supported is
needed to make code easier to follow?

Just a trivial suggestion. Thanks!

>