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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 2A488C04AB1 for ; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:22:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1F6217D6 for ; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:22:51 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DD1F6217D6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 618FF6B000C; Thu, 9 May 2019 12:22:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 5C99A6B000D; Thu, 9 May 2019 12:22:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 4B8436B000E; Thu, 9 May 2019 12:22:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-pl1-f200.google.com (mail-pl1-f200.google.com [209.85.214.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F716B000C for ; Thu, 9 May 2019 12:22:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl1-f200.google.com with SMTP id x5so1854338pll.2 for ; Thu, 09 May 2019 09:22:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-original-authentication-results:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id:references :in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language:dlp-product :dlp-version:dlp-reaction:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=MnJUOeGEfxoXATq898/79HSPqxNr6uBR2VgKy0JDKm8=; b=cI0d6U038z1tlNAbCmFJGGssd5rkSxBrKxdjQhZnWN0zibkjO67TIKakre2/xsyjqo MN67q/TJ8gY3NCYjLjWylUPdMJsJQdTvTWNrytUEVTJvhSyK3jts1gZV2ZGykzhHbpkw mwB/Zkpr2FAVp2Ng7bMwek9YT4mw+Y0s424VnMvDZSw2Lrt7Y4sE+1awbazJi8KUTPeq mvA0IzOTB3Q49KXHEhsWU8vv43nqon8Sc/RebO0QGc+sHTgiRJYdIKLAxxJFFRzxK41a K0hkYoJMzebtatl807NUGNYu5D1ZYR2zsIc0Y2dCTkXhuAP4H/IPQ0/iju+1ytjF3ddh tzIA== X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ira.weiny@intel.com designates 134.134.136.100 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ira.weiny@intel.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVjIGwejX6tCdtJ+KF7AJx3rmBHb6+QS2kIBPwIn+fWP6SFaf26 j8QCWmndRknPefpd54NiyNAc+gl7VtvDEfNn3UURAWu8RzOdIhBBMHe8/n/WLXoXTI5GriBmRrQ SJxqTBUUF//wigncWLpCISkRmt5ng8WsOc/4EZ9+zqxQZ6n7GQB0snaXfNqlvI4m0tQ== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8e04:: with SMTP id c4mr6470044pfr.48.1557418970717; Thu, 09 May 2019 09:22:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwVL09ur8DF/uXa3vFWKKNV3C3Q71OvFC+rw3AvNfVg3wXvvsRJGDNaL/K9Mb7YJQ6Y2Xv0 X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8e04:: with SMTP id c4mr6469964pfr.48.1557418970051; Thu, 09 May 2019 09:22:50 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1557418970; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=PKa9Xu+fOPDqRxRKEcrK+brrFmAft9bZAemtE8lelQkA+BAM1I4DqhX7it1nmlpHIr UER0LtuzKsoiyGEW7SqP8l9Dkajg0vBgkEUxm6nW9Hw1cS9RhNnkybEjphfgKjaFCf1D FxBVR2DG+w9RHkfeoFmrqN+poyo9m2q5yzKsU3lVdgj7ga6p7IfktbXK4CEvn0JUaLxr Mzc4M+oRChLJfWPl9SHFkQ8fGtmzoqD3o8SFp8GGf3uUg98zO3n9+Umx8xZbgMo0EtYh cCisR9HWxqLAB/LSjYoggTEhXXVq6GkHHT5J2YjrbAF8tFJ5ul9WkUr8V+53t2HkTVrj deQQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:dlp-reaction:dlp-version :dlp-product:content-language:accept-language:in-reply-to:references :message-id:date:thread-index:thread-topic:subject:cc:to:from; bh=MnJUOeGEfxoXATq898/79HSPqxNr6uBR2VgKy0JDKm8=; b=NiaEMVytZRw8KczHQI3LeT8odF7bvoqT9PGEdEyD7qem680asQ19hehdDGfpz50ues 8deTEo7UJAJWVcyQ5FnfRwiSiU5eG1NrcDjidw1qI4dsfdkgmVcXMc5GZ7pP5+ObzKcd frOsOVDOKHNcnuHruBcslhAEkVmYYfpFElwAn2c1qagoWnKSAyv7JhkDf0hnFOK0Sd+g Hf7gxdxO0qubuab3yqnLV4h2wdIlyPbOMqeuUpLgsPtBtiK7k0LgqgZaZ4CFoQeJt4VH VGCNiAUOI/xHGy4ZuFdBf+L2K2ks/CsC4UKuqMfjPCMMUlyaQopmbTKAY36V9+yoIGFY ap/A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ira.weiny@intel.com designates 134.134.136.100 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ira.weiny@intel.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com. [134.134.136.100]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o15si3909382pgh.181.2019.05.09.09.22.49 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 May 2019 09:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ira.weiny@intel.com designates 134.134.136.100 as permitted sender) client-ip=134.134.136.100; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ira.weiny@intel.com designates 134.134.136.100 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ira.weiny@intel.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 May 2019 09:22:37 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from fmsmsx108.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.206]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 May 2019 09:22:37 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx125.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.125.40) by FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 9 May 2019 09:22:36 -0700 Received: from crsmsx103.amr.corp.intel.com (172.18.63.31) by FMSMSX125.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.125.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 9 May 2019 09:22:36 -0700 Received: from crsmsx101.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.116]) by CRSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.184]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 9 May 2019 10:22:33 -0600 From: "Weiny, Ira" To: Matthew Wilcox CC: "linux-mm@kvack.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH 02/11] mm: Pass order to __alloc_pages_nodemask in GFP flags Thread-Topic: [PATCH 02/11] mm: Pass order to __alloc_pages_nodemask in GFP flags Thread-Index: AQHVBIqaXqt0fPnBZEirHr/43yV0JKZh+T+AgAFAwAD//8NusA== Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 16:22:33 +0000 Message-ID: <2807E5FD2F6FDA4886F6618EAC48510E79D0CEBC@CRSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <20190507040609.21746-1-willy@infradead.org> <20190507040609.21746-3-willy@infradead.org> <20190509015015.GA26131@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> <20190509135816.GA23561@bombadil.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20190509135816.GA23561@bombadil.infradead.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNDFmY2E1MjYtY2U5OS00ZmI1LTk2NDYtODg4MmFlOTI2NGEzIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiamlnWkpnNU5yWXFGbXphSndCeGxCTTVTUDhMNXVFNFQwaENOdGhiQ2kzWnc4b1FHMzlPXC9RaTYxeGlTY1pWQ08ifQ== x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.600.7 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [172.18.205.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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: >=20 > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 06:50:16PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > > On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 09:06:00PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > Save marshalling an extra argument in all the callers at the expense > > > of using five bits of the GFP flags. We still have three GFP bits > > > remaining after doing this (and we can release one more by > > > reallocating NORETRY, RETRY_MAYFAIL and NOFAIL). >=20 > > > -static void *dsalloc_pages(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int cpu) > > > +static void *dsalloc_pages(size_t size, gfp_t gfp, int cpu) > > > { > > > unsigned int order =3D get_order(size); > > > int node =3D cpu_to_node(cpu); > > > struct page *page; > > > > > > - page =3D __alloc_pages_node(node, flags | __GFP_ZERO, order); > > > + page =3D __alloc_pages_node(node, gfp | __GFP_ZERO | > > > +__GFP_ORDER(order)); > > > > Order was derived from size in this function. Is this truely equal to > > the old function? > > > > At a minimum if I am wrong the get_order call above should be removed, > no? >=20 > I think you have a misunderstanding, but I'm not sure what it is. >=20 > Before this patch, we pass 'order' (a small integer generally less than 1= 0) in > the bottom few bits of a parameter called 'order'. After this patch, we = pass > the order in some of the high bits of the GFP flags. So we can't remove = the > call to get_order() because that's what calculates 'order' from 'size'. Ah I see it now. Sorry was thinking the wrong thing when I saw that line. Yep you are correct, Ira >=20 > > > +#define __GFP_ORDER(order) ((__force gfp_t)(order << > __GFP_BITS_SHIFT)) > > > +#define __GFP_ORDER_PMD __GFP_ORDER(PMD_SHIFT - > PAGE_SHIFT) > > > +#define __GFP_ORDER_PUD __GFP_ORDER(PUD_SHIFT - > PAGE_SHIFT) > > > + > > > +/* > > > + * Extract the order from a GFP bitmask. > > > + * Must be the top bits to avoid an AND operation. Don't let > > > + * __GFP_BITS_SHIFT get over 27, or we won't be able to encode > > > +orders > > > + * above 15 (some architectures allow configuring MAX_ORDER up to > > > +64, > > > + * but I doubt larger than 31 are ever used). > > > + */ > > > +#define gfp_order(gfp) (((__force unsigned int)gfp) >> > __GFP_BITS_SHIFT)