From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4 v2] mm: give __GFP_REPEAT a better semantic
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 11:10:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170516091022.GD2481@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170307154843.32516-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
So, is there some interest in this? I am not going to push this if there
is a general consensus that we do not need to do anything about the
current situation or need a different approach.
On Tue 07-03-17 16:48:39, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> this is a follow up for __GFP_REPEAT clean up merged in 4.7. The previous
> version of this patch series was posted as an RFC
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1465212736-14637-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org
> Since then I have reconsidered the semantic and made it a counterpart
> to the __GFP_NORETRY and made it the other extreme end of the retry
> logic. Both are not invoking the OOM killer so they are suitable
> for allocation paths with a fallback. Also a new potential user has
> emerged (kvmalloc - see patch 4). I have also renamed the flag from
> __GFP_RETRY_HARD to __GFP_RETRY_MAY_FAIL as this should be more clear.
>
> I have kept the RFC status because of the semantic change. The patch 1
> is an exception because it should be merge regardless of the rest.
>
> The main motivation for the change is that the current implementation of
> __GFP_REPEAT is not very much useful.
>
> The documentation says:
> * __GFP_REPEAT: Try hard to allocate the memory, but the allocation attempt
> * _might_ fail. This depends upon the particular VM implementation.
>
> It just fails to mention that this is true only for large (costly) high
> order which has been the case since the flag was introduced. A similar
> semantic would be really helpful for smal orders as well, though,
> because we have places where a failure with a specific fallback error
> handling is preferred to a potential endless loop inside the page
> allocator.
>
> The earlier cleanup dropped __GFP_REPEAT usage for low (!costly) order
> users so only those which might use larger orders have stayed. One user
> which slipped through cracks is addressed in patch 1.
>
> Let's rename the flag to something more verbose and use it for existing
> users. Semantic for those will not change. Then implement low (!costly)
> orders failure path which is hit after the page allocator is about to
> invoke the oom killer. Now we have a good counterpart for __GFP_NORETRY
> and finally can tell try as hard as possible without the OOM killer.
>
> Xfs code already has an existing annotation for allocations which are
> allowed to fail and we can trivially map them to the new gfp flag
> because it will provide the semantic KM_MAYFAIL wants.
>
> kvmalloc will allow also !costly high order allocations to retry hard
> before falling back to the vmalloc.
>
> The patchset is based on the current linux-next.
>
> Shortlog
> Michal Hocko (4):
> s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT
> mm, tree wide: replace __GFP_REPEAT by __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL with more useful semantic
> xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL
> mm: kvmalloc support __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL for all sizes
>
> Diffstat
> Documentation/DMA-ISA-LPC.txt | 2 +-
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/pgalloc.h | 2 +-
> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c | 2 +-
> arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c | 2 +-
> drivers/mmc/host/wbsd.c | 2 +-
> drivers/s390/char/vmcp.c | 2 +-
> drivers/target/target_core_transport.c | 2 +-
> drivers/vhost/net.c | 2 +-
> drivers/vhost/scsi.c | 2 +-
> drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 2 +-
> fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c | 2 +-
> fs/btrfs/raid56.c | 2 +-
> fs/xfs/kmem.h | 10 +++++++++
> include/linux/gfp.h | 32 +++++++++++++++++++---------
> include/linux/slab.h | 3 ++-
> include/trace/events/mmflags.h | 2 +-
> mm/hugetlb.c | 4 ++--
> mm/internal.h | 2 +-
> mm/page_alloc.c | 14 +++++++++---
> mm/sparse-vmemmap.c | 4 ++--
> mm/util.c | 14 ++++--------
> mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +-
> mm/vmscan.c | 8 +++----
> net/core/dev.c | 6 +++---
> net/core/skbuff.c | 2 +-
> net/sched/sch_fq.c | 2 +-
> tools/perf/builtin-kmem.c | 2 +-
> 27 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 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>
--
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:[~2017-05-16 9:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-07 15:48 Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48 ` [PATCH 1/4] s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT Michal Hocko
2017-03-08 8:23 ` Heiko Carstens
2017-03-08 14:11 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-09 8:27 ` Heiko Carstens
2017-03-07 15:48 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] mm, tree wide: replace __GFP_REPEAT by __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL with more useful semantic Michal Hocko
2017-05-25 1:21 ` NeilBrown
2017-05-31 11:42 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-03 2:24 ` Wei Yang
2017-06-05 6:43 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-06 3:04 ` Wei Yang
2017-06-06 12:03 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-07 2:10 ` Wei Yang
2017-06-09 7:32 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 17:05 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-03-08 9:35 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08 11:23 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-03-08 12:54 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08 15:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-09 9:16 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] mm: kvmalloc support __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL for all sizes Michal Hocko
2017-05-16 9:10 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-05-23 8:12 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4 v2] mm: give __GFP_REPEAT a better semantic Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-24 1:06 ` NeilBrown
2017-05-24 7:34 ` 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=20170516091022.GD2481@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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