Re: [PATCH] mm: compaction: skip memory hole rapidly when isolating migratable pages

From: David Hildenbrand
Date: Mon Jun 12 2023 - 06:33:00 EST


On 12.06.23 12:10, Baolin Wang wrote:


On 6/12/2023 5:54 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 12.06.23 11:36, Baolin Wang wrote:


On 6/12/2023 2:39 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

On some machines, the normal zone can have a large memory hole like
below memory layout, and we can see the range from 0x100000000 to
0x1800000000 is a hole. So when isolating some migratable pages, the
scanner can meet the hole and it will take more time to skip the large
hole. From my measurement, I can see the isolation scanner will take
80us ~ 100us to skip the large hole [0x100000000 - 0x1800000000].

So adding a new helper to fast search next online memory section
to skip the large hole can help to find next suitable pageblock
efficiently. With this patch, I can see the large hole scanning only
takes < 1us.

[    0.000000] Zone ranges:
[    0.000000]   DMA      [mem 0x0000000040000000-0x00000000ffffffff]
[    0.000000]   DMA32    empty
[    0.000000]   Normal   [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x0000001fa7ffffff]
[    0.000000] Movable zone start for each node
[    0.000000] Early memory node ranges
[    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000000040000000-0x0000000fffffffff]
[    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001800000000-0x0000001fa3c7ffff]
[    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa3c80000-0x0000001fa3ffffff]
[    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa4000000-0x0000001fa402ffff]
[    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa4030000-0x0000001fa40effff]
[    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa40f0000-0x0000001fa73cffff]
[    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa73d0000-0x0000001fa745ffff]
[    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa7460000-0x0000001fa746ffff]
[    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa7470000-0x0000001fa758ffff]
[    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x0000001fa7590000-0x0000001fa7ffffff]

Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
   include/linux/mmzone.h | 10 ++++++++++
   mm/compaction.c        | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
   2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
index 5a7ada0413da..87e6c535d895 100644
--- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
+++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
@@ -2000,6 +2000,16 @@ static inline unsigned long
next_present_section_nr(unsigned long section_nr)
       return -1;
   }
+static inline unsigned long next_online_section_nr(unsigned long
section_nr)
+{
+    while (++section_nr <= __highest_present_section_nr) {
+        if (online_section_nr(section_nr))
+            return section_nr;
+    }
+
+    return -1UL;
+}
+
   /*
    * These are _only_ used during initialisation, therefore they
    * can use __initdata ...  They could have names to indicate
diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
index 3398ef3a55fe..3a55fdd20c49 100644
--- a/mm/compaction.c
+++ b/mm/compaction.c
@@ -229,6 +229,21 @@ static void reset_cached_positions(struct zone
*zone)
                   pageblock_start_pfn(zone_end_pfn(zone) - 1);
   }
+static unsigned long skip_hole_pageblock(unsigned long start_pfn)
+{
+    unsigned long next_online_nr;
+    unsigned long start_nr = pfn_to_section_nr(start_pfn);
+
+    if (online_section_nr(start_nr))
+        return -1UL;

Define a macro for the maigic "-1UL"?  Which is used for multiple times
in the patch.

I am struggling to find a readable macro for these '-1UL', since the
'-1UL' in next_online_section_nr() indicates that it can not find an
online section. However the '-1' in skip_hole_pageblock() indicates that
it can not find an online pfn.

Maybe something like

#define SECTION_NR_INVALID -1UL

Actually we already have a NR_MEM_SECTIONS macro, which means it is an
invalid section if the section nr >= NR_MEM_SECTIONS. So using
NR_MEM_SECTIONS seems more suitable?

Indeed, that would also work!

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb