Suspicious error for CMA stress test
Vlastimil Babka
vbabka at suse.cz
Fri Mar 18 13:58:35 PDT 2016
On 03/18/2016 03:42 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 18.03.2016, 15:10 +0100 schrieb Vlastimil Babka:
>> On 03/17/2016 04:52 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> > 2016-03-18 0:43 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka at suse.cz>:
>>
>> OK, here it is. Hanjun can you please retest this, as I'm not sure if you had
>> the same code due to the followup one-liner patches in the thread. Lucas, see if
>> it helps with your issue as well. Laura and Joonsoo, please also test and review
>> and check changelog if my perception of the problem is accurate :)
>>
>
> This doesn't help for my case, as it is still trying to merge pages in
> isolated ranges. It even tries extra hard at doing so.
>
> With concurrent isolation and frees going on this may lead to the start
> page of the range to be isolated merging into an higher order buddy page
> if it isn't already pageblock aligned, leading both test_pages_isolated
> and isolate_freepages to fail on an otherwise perfectly fine range.
>
> What I am arguing is that if a page is freed into an isolated range we
> should not try merge it with it's buddies at all, by setting max_order =
> order. If the range is isolated because want to isolate freepages from
> it, the work to do the merging is wasted, as isolate_freepages will
> split higher order pages into order-0 pages again.
>
> If we already finished isolating freepages and are in the process of
> undoing the isolation, we don't strictly need to do the merging in
> __free_one_page, but can defer it to unset_migratetype_isolate, allowing
> to simplify those code paths by disallowing any merging of isolated
> pages at all.
Oh, I think understand now. Yeah, skipping merging for pages in isolated
pageblocks might be a rather elegant solution. But still, we would have to check
buddy's migratetype at order >= pageblock_order like my patch does, which is
annoying. Because even without isolated merging, the buddy might have already
had order>=pageblock_order when it was isolated.
So what if isolation also split existing buddies in the pageblock immediately
when it sets the MIGRATETYPE_ISOLATE on the pageblock? Then we would have it
guaranteed that there's no isolated buddy - a buddy candidate at order >=
pageblock_order either has a smaller order (so it's not a buddy) or is not
MIGRATE_ISOLATE so it's safe to merge with.
Does that make sense?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list