From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/19] tree wide: get rid of __GFP_REPEAT for order-0 allocations part I
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 09:44:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160415074421.GB32377@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1604141255020.6593@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Thu 14-04-16 12:56:28, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> >
> > __GFP_REPEAT has a rather weak semantic but since it has been introduced
> > around 2.6.12 it has been ignored for low order allocations. Yet we have
> > the full kernel tree with its usage for apparently order-0 allocations.
> > This is really confusing because __GFP_REPEAT is explicitly documented
> > to allow allocation failures which is a weaker semantic than the current
> > order-0 has (basically nofail).
> >
> > Let's simply drop __GFP_REPEAT from those places. This would allow
> > to identify place which really need allocator to retry harder and
> > formulate a more specific semantic for what the flag is supposed to do
> > actually.
> >
> > Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>
> I did exactly this before, and Andrew objected saying that __GFP_REPEAT
> may not be needed for the current page allocator's implementation but
> could with others and that setting __GFP_REPEAT for an allocation
> provided useful information with regards to intent.
>From what I've seen it was more a copy&paste of the arch code which
spread out this flag and there was also a misleading usage.
> At the time, I attempted to eliminate __GFP_REPEAT entirely.
This is not my plan. I actually want to provide a useful semantic for
something like this flag - aka try really hard but eventually fail
for all orders and stop being special only for those that are costly. I
will call it __GFP_BEST_EFFORT. But I have to clean up the current usage
first. Costly orders will keep __GFP_REPEAT because the intent is clear
there. All others will lose the flag and then we can start adding
__GFP_BEST_EFFORT where it matters also for lower orders.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-15 7:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-11 11:07 [PATCH 0/19] get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPORT Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 11:07 ` [PATCH 01/19] tree wide: get rid of __GFP_REPEAT for order-0 allocations part I Michal Hocko
2016-04-14 19:56 ` David Rientjes
2016-04-15 7:44 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-04-11 11:07 ` [PATCH 02/19] x86: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 11:07 ` [PATCH 03/19] x86/efi: " Michal Hocko
2016-04-12 15:53 ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-11 11:07 ` [PATCH 04/19] arm: " Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 11:07 ` [PATCH 05/19] arm64: " Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 15:49 ` Will Deacon
2016-04-11 11:07 ` [PATCH 06/19] arc: " Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 14:23 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-04-11 11:08 ` [PATCH 07/19] mips: " Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 11:08 ` [PATCH 08/19] nios2: " Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 11:08 ` [PATCH 09/19] parisc: " Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 11:08 ` [PATCH 10/19] score: " Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 11:08 ` [PATCH 11/19] powerpc: " Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 11:08 ` [PATCH 12/19] sparc: " Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 11:08 ` [PATCH 13/19] s390: " Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 11:28 ` Cornelia Huck
2016-04-11 12:47 ` Heiko Carstens
2016-04-11 11:08 ` [PATCH 14/19] sh: " Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 11:08 ` [PATCH 15/19] tile: " Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 11:08 ` [PATCH 16/19] unicore32: " Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 11:08 ` [PATCH 17/19] dm: get rid of superfluous gfp flags Michal Hocko
2016-04-15 12:29 ` Mikulas Patocka
2016-04-15 13:08 ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-15 18:41 ` Mikulas Patocka
2016-04-16 20:31 ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-22 12:47 ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-26 17:20 ` Mikulas Patocka
2016-04-27 8:35 ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 11:08 ` [PATCH 18/19] crypto: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT Michal Hocko
2016-04-14 6:27 ` Herbert Xu
2016-04-14 7:02 ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-14 8:16 ` Herbert Xu
2016-04-14 8:51 ` [PATCH resend] " Michal Hocko
2016-04-15 14:37 ` Herbert Xu
2016-04-11 11:08 ` [PATCH 19/19] jbd2: " Michal Hocko
2016-04-13 11:21 ` CC in git cover letter vs patches (was Re: [PATCH 0/19] get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPORT) Vineet Gupta
2016-04-13 13:33 ` Michal Hocko
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=20160415074421.GB32377@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rientjes@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