From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ACFFC4361B for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:54:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9849D223D6 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:54:05 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9849D223D6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id DA3C06B0068; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 03:54:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id D2DAB6B006C; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 03:54:04 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C1CB88D0001; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 03:54:04 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0010.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.10]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC0FF6B0068 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 03:54:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74FF7180AD80F for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:54:04 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77554987608.19.cream88_1f18157273c3 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5643C1AD1B7 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:54:04 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: cream88_1f18157273c3 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3199 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf20.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:54:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1607072042; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GzUWTFBPDORH96iWBN+PzoJswcnczTaxytp5LowmCEU=; b=NDbrPj0qDNLfAfWJzbi4xsbf8SduwUiEgH/Z/xNOYSFwe9IcZH6fuxfDFBrqB//TEUxSep LRHo08oEO/YpShqf8CuOQdD8fieBnjisHCtLjK9x667fa28AWH9J6icxQBwKNNkvkphYpH Dn2FhDIJKze/52Kna9WFtZh04/W4t7A= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 821FFACC4; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:54:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:54:01 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Pavel Tatashin Cc: LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , David Hildenbrand , Oscar Salvador , Dan Williams , Sasha Levin , Tyler Hicks , Joonsoo Kim , mike.kravetz@oracle.com, Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Jason Gunthorpe , Peter Zijlstra , Mel Gorman , Matthew Wilcox , David Rientjes , John Hubbard Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] mm: honor PF_MEMALLOC_NOMOVABLE for all allocations Message-ID: <20201204085401.GB25569@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20201202052330.474592-1-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> <20201202052330.474592-6-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> <20201203091703.GA17338@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20201204084312.GA25569@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201204084312.GA25569@dhcp22.suse.cz> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri 04-12-20 09:43:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 03-12-20 10:15:41, Pavel Tatashin wrote: [...] > > Also, current_gfp_context() is used elsewhere, and in some > > places removing __GFP_MOVABLE from gfp_mask means that we will need to > > also change other things. For example [1], in try_to_free_pages() we > > call current_gfp_context(gfp_mask) which can reduce the maximum zone > > idx, yet we simply set it to: reclaim_idx = gfp_zone(gfp_mask), not to > > the newly determined gfp_mask. > > Yes and the direct reclaim should honor the movable zone restriction. > Why should we reclaim ZONE_MOVABLE when the allocation cannot really > allocate from it? Or have I misunderstood your concern? Btw. if we have gfp mask properly filtered for the fast path then we can remove the additional call to current_gfp_context from the direct reclaim path. Something for a separate patch. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs