From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@oracle.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] slab, block: generalize bvec_alloc_gfp
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 07:47:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251027064728.GA13145@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aP6QX_gNpY9UDtub@casper.infradead.org>
On Sun, Oct 26, 2025 at 09:19:27PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> it's quite different. I am by no stretch of the imagination a GFP
> flags expert, but it seems to me that we should make the two the same
> since they're both "try to allocate and we have a fallback if
> necessary". I suspect kvmalloc() is called with a wider range of
> GFP flags than bvec allocation is, so it's probably better tested.
>
> Is there a reason _not_ to use the kvmalloc code for bvec allocations?
It's using a dedicated slab cache, which makes sense for such a frequent
and usually short-lived allocation. We also don't use vmalloc backing
ever at the moment.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-27 6:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-23 8:08 make block layer auto-PI deadlock safe Christoph Hellwig
2025-10-23 8:08 ` [PATCH 1/3] slab, block: generalize bvec_alloc_gfp Christoph Hellwig
2025-10-24 1:44 ` Martin K. Petersen
2025-10-24 8:38 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-10-24 9:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-10-26 21:19 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-10-27 6:47 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2025-10-27 13:09 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-10-27 13:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-10-23 8:08 ` [PATCH 2/3] block: blocking mempool_alloc doesn't fail Christoph Hellwig
2025-10-24 1:45 ` Martin K. Petersen
2025-10-23 8:08 ` [PATCH 3/3] block: make bio auto-integrity deadlock safe Christoph Hellwig
2025-10-24 1:47 ` Martin K. Petersen
2025-10-27 6:03 ` Kanchan Joshi
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=20251027064728.GA13145@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=harry.yoo@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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