On 2/20/21 1:43 AM, Dan Williams wrote:

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:59 PM John Hubbard [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 12/8/20 9:28 AM, Joao Martins wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/mm/memremap.c b/mm/memremap.c
index 16b2fb482da1..287a24b7a65a 100644
--- a/mm/memremap.c
+++ b/mm/memremap.c

@@ -277,8 +277,12 @@ static int pagemap_range(struct dev_pagemap *pgmap, struct mhp_params *params,
      memmap_init_zone_device(&NODE_DATA(nid)->node_zones[ZONE_DEVICE],
                              PHYS_PFN(range->start),
                              PHYS_PFN(range_len(range)), pgmap);
-     percpu_ref_get_many(pgmap->ref, pfn_end(pgmap, range_id)
-                     - pfn_first(pgmap, range_id));
+     if (pgmap->flags & PGMAP_COMPOUND)
+             percpu_ref_get_many(pgmap->ref, (pfn_end(pgmap, range_id)
+                     - pfn_first(pgmap, range_id)) / PHYS_PFN(pgmap->align));

Is there some reason that we cannot use range_len(), instead of pfn_end() minus
pfn_first()? (Yes, this more about the pre-existing code than about your change.)

And if not, then why are the nearby range_len() uses OK? I realize that range_len()
is simpler and skips a case, but it's not clear that it's required here. But I'm
new to this area so be warned. :)

There's a subtle distinction between the range that was passed in and
the pfns that are activated inside of it. See the offset trickery in
pfn_first().

quoted

Also, dividing by PHYS_PFN() feels quite misleading: that function does what you
happen to want, but is not named accordingly. Can you use or create something
more accurately named? Like "number of pages in this large page"?

It's not the number of pages in a large page it's converting bytes to
pages. Other place in the kernel write it as (x >> PAGE_SHIFT), but my
though process was if I'm going to add () might as well use a macro
that already does this.

That said I think this calculation is broken precisely because
pfn_first() makes the result unaligned.

Rather than fix the unaligned pfn_first() problem I would use this
support as an opportunity to revisit the option of storing pages in
the vmem_altmap reserve soace. The altmap's whole reason for existence
was that 1.5% of large PMEM might completely swamp DRAM. However if
that overhead is reduced by an order (or orders) of magnitude the
primary need for vmem_altmap vanishes.

Now, we'll still need to keep it around for the ->align == PAGE_SIZE
case, but for most part existing deployments that are specifying page
map on PMEM and an align > PAGE_SIZE can instead just transparently be
upgraded to page map on a smaller amount of DRAM.

I feel the altmap is still relevant. Even with the struct page reuse for
tail pages, the overhead for 2M align is still non-negligeble i.e. 4G per
1Tb (strictly speaking about what's stored in the altmap). Muchun and
Matthew were thinking (in another thread) on compound_head() adjustments
that probably can make this overhead go to 2G (if we learn to differentiate
the reused head page from the real head page). But even there it's still
2G per 1Tb. 1G pages, though, have a better story to remove altmap need.

One thing to point out about altmap is that the degradation (in pinning and
unpining) we observed with struct page's in device memory, is no longer observed
once 1) we batch ref count updates as we move to compound pages 2) reusing
tail pages seems to lead to these struct pages staying more likely in cache
which perhaps contributes to dirtying a lot less cachelines.

	Joao