linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 19:23:07 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211029172307.GA2944@pc638.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YXwI7+1bQNECvBz4@dhcp22.suse.cz>

> On Fri 29-10-21 16:05:32, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> [...]
> > > OK, this looks easier from the code reading but isn't it quite wasteful
> > > to throw all the pages backing the area (all of them allocated as
> > > __GFP_NOFAIL) just to then fail to allocate few page tables pages and
> > > drop all of that on the floor (this will happen in __vunmap AFAICS).
> > >
> > > I mean I do not care all that strongly but it seems to me that more
> > > changes would need to be done here and optimizations can be done on top.
> > >
> > > Is this something you feel strongly about?
> > >
> > Will try to provide some motivations :)
> > 
> > It depends on how to look at it. My view is as follows a more simple code
> > is preferred. It is not considered as a hot path and it is rather a corner
> > case to me.
> 
> Yes, we are definitely talking about corner cases here. Even GFP_KERNEL
> allocations usually do not fail.
> 
> > I think "unwinding" has some advantage. At least one motivation
> > is to release a memory(on failure) before a delay that will prevent holding
> > of extra memory in case of __GFP_NOFAIL infinitelly does not succeed, i.e.
> > if a process stuck due to __GFP_NOFAIL it does not "hold" an extra memory
> > forever.
> 
> Well, I suspect this is something that we can disagree on and both of us
> would be kinda right. I would see it as throwing baby out with the
> bathwater. The vast majority of the memory will be in the area pages and
> sacrificing that just to allocate few page tables or whatever that might
> fail in that code path is just a lot of cycles wasted.
>
We are not talking about performance, no sense to measure cycles here :)

> 
> So unless you really feel strongly about this then I would stick with
> this approach.
>
I have raised one concern. The memory resource is shared between all
process in case of __GFP_NOFAIL it might be that we never return back
to user in that scenario i prefer to release hold memory for other
needs instead of keeping it for nothing.

If you think it is not a problem, then i do not have much to say.

--
Vlad Rezki


  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-29 17:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-25 15:02 [PATCH 0/4] extend vmalloc support for constrained allocations Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 15:02 ` [PATCH 1/4] mm/vmalloc: alloc GFP_NO{FS,IO} for vmalloc Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 15:02 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 22:59   ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26  7:03     ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-26 10:30       ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26 11:29         ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-26 15:48   ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-10-26 16:28     ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-26 19:33       ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-10-27  6:46         ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-27 17:55         ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-10-29  7:57           ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-29 14:05             ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-10-29 14:45               ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-29 17:23                 ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
2021-10-25 15:02 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm/vmalloc: be more explicit about supported gfp flags Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 23:26   ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26  7:10     ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-26 10:43       ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26 12:20         ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 15:02 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm: allow !GFP_KERNEL allocations for kvmalloc Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 23:34   ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26  7:15     ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-26 10:48       ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26 12:23         ` 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=20211029172307.GA2944@pc638.lan \
    --to=urezki@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=idryomov@gmail.com \
    --cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=neilb@suse.de \
    /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