From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
mike.kravetz@oracle.com, mhocko@suse.com, muchun.song@linux.dev,
rientjes@google.com, souravpanda@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: hugetlb_vmemmap: provide stronger vmemmap allocation guarantees
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:13:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230412131302.cf42a7f4b710db8c18b7b676@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230412195939.1242462-1-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Lots of questions (ie, missing information!)
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:59:39 +0000 Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> wrote:
> HugeTLB pages have a struct page optimizations where struct pages for tail
> pages are freed. However, when HugeTLB pages are destroyed, the memory for
> struct pages (vmemmap) need to be allocated again.
>
> Currently, __GFP_NORETRY flag is used to allocate the memory for vmemmap,
> but given that this flag makes very little effort to actually reclaim
> memory the returning of huge pages back to the system can be problem.
Are there any reports of this happening in the real world?
> Lets
> use __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL instead. This flag is also performs graceful
> reclaim without causing ooms, but at least it may perform a few retries,
> and will fail only when there is genuinely little amount of unused memory
> in the system.
If so, does this change help?
If the allocation attempt fails, what are the consequences?
What are the potential downsides to this change? Why did we choose
__GFP_NORETRY in the first place?
What happens if we try harder (eg, GFP_KERNEL)?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-12 20:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-12 19:59 Pasha Tatashin
2023-04-12 20:13 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2023-04-12 20:18 ` Michal Hocko
2023-04-13 15:05 ` Pasha Tatashin
2023-04-13 15:25 ` Michal Hocko
2023-04-13 17:11 ` Pasha Tatashin
2023-04-13 18:12 ` Michal Hocko
2023-04-15 0:47 ` David Rientjes
2023-04-17 8:33 ` Michal Hocko
2023-04-17 18:51 ` Mike Kravetz
2023-04-13 14:59 ` Pasha Tatashin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230412131302.cf42a7f4b710db8c18b7b676@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=souravpanda@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®