On 28.01.21 14:44, Oscar Salvador wrote:

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:43:41AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

quoted

My knowledge of CMA tends to be quite low, actually I though that CMA
was somehow tied to ZONE_MOVABLE.

CMA is often placed into one of the kernel zones, but can also end up in the movable zone.

Ok good to know.

quoted

quoted

I see how tracking CMA pages per zona might give you a clue, but what do
you mean by "might behave differently - even after some of these pages might
already have been allocated"

Assume you have 4GB in ZONE_NORMAL but 1GB is assigned for CMA. You actually only have 3GB available for random kernel allocations, not 4GB.

Currently, you can only observe the free CMA pages, excluding any pages that are already allocated. Having that information how many CMA pages we have can be helpful - similar to what we already have in /proc/meminfo.

I see, I agree that it can provide some guidance.

quoted

quoted

I see that NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES is there even without CONFIG_CMA, as you
said, but I am not sure about adding size to a zone unconditionally.
I mean, it is not terrible as IIRC, the maximum MAX_NUMNODES can get
is 1024, and on x86_64 that would be (1024 * 4 zones) * 8 = 32K.
So not a big deal, but still.

I'm asking myself how many such systems will run without
CONFIG_CMA in the future.

I am not sure, my comment was just to point out that even the added size might
not be that large, hiding it under CONFIG_CMA seemed the right thing to
do.

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/mm/vmstat.c b/mm/vmstat.c
index 8ba0870ecddd..5757df4bfd45 100644
--- a/mm/vmstat.c
+++ b/mm/vmstat.c

@@ -1559,13 +1559,15 @@ static void zoneinfo_show_print(struct seq_file *m, pg_data_t *pgdat,
                     "\n        spanned  %lu"
                     "\n        present  %lu"
                     "\n        managed  %lu",
+                  "\n        cma      %lu",
                     zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES),
                     min_wmark_pages(zone),
                     low_wmark_pages(zone),
                     high_wmark_pages(zone),
                     zone->spanned_pages,
                     zone->present_pages,
-                  zone->managed_pages);
+                  zone->managed_pages,
+                  IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA) ? zone->cma_pages : 0);
          seq_printf(m,
                     "\n        protection: (%ld",

I do not see it that ugly, but just my taste.

IIRC, that does not work. The compiler will still complain
about a missing struct members. We would have to provide a
zone_cma_pages() helper with some ifdefery.

Of course, it seems I switched off my brain.

quoted

We could do something like this on top

--- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
+++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h

@@ -530,7 +530,9 @@ struct zone {
         atomic_long_t           managed_pages;
         unsigned long           spanned_pages;
         unsigned long           present_pages;
+#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
         unsigned long           cma_pages;
+#endif
         const char              *name;

diff --git a/mm/vmstat.c b/mm/vmstat.c
index 97fc32a53320..b753a64f099f 100644
--- a/mm/vmstat.c
+++ b/mm/vmstat.c

@@ -1643,7 +1643,10 @@ static void zoneinfo_show_print(struct seq_file *m, pg_data_t *pgdat,
                    "\n        spanned  %lu"
                    "\n        present  %lu"
                    "\n        managed  %lu"
-                  "\n        cma      %lu",
+#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
+                  "\n        cma      %lu"
+#endif
+                  "%s",
                    zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES),
                    min_wmark_pages(zone),
                    low_wmark_pages(zone),

@@ -1651,7 +1654,10 @@ static void zoneinfo_show_print(struct seq_file *m, pg_data_t *pgdat,
                    zone->spanned_pages,
                    zone->present_pages,
                    zone_managed_pages(zone),
-                  zone->cma_pages);
+#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
+                  zone->cma_pages,
+#endif
+                  "");
         seq_printf(m,
                    "\n        protection: (%ld",

Looks good to me, but I can see how those #ifdef can raise some
eyebrows.

We could print it further above to avoid the "%s" ... "", or print it 
separately below. Then we'd only need a single ifdef. Might make sense

Let us see what other thinks as well.

Btw, should linux-uapi be CCed, as /proc/vmstat layout will change?

Is there a linux-uapi@ list? I know linux-api@ ("forum to discuss 
changes that affect the Linux programming interface (API or ABI)".

Good question, I can certainly cc linux-api@, although I doubt it's 
strictly necessary when adding something here.

Thanks!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb