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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3CCEC25B0E for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 16:46:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 43E918E0002; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 12:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 3C67C8E0001; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 12:46:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 266588E0002; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 12:46:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0016.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.16]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104E78E0001 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 12:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin06.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDE51141109 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 16:46:13 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79780631826.06.6949607 Received: from mail-pl1-f176.google.com (mail-pl1-f176.google.com [209.85.214.176]) by imf13.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7053F20058 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 16:46:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f176.google.com with SMTP id 17so2498534pli.0 for ; Tue, 09 Aug 2022 09:46:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=uHQRIfVur9zfSFEWEaeiIoBJy84LkekYvVpmffziNxU=; b=A6TEhR//bpaP4+VAphRhv6kv5xnZC3cu0o4DfEsC2eDFbyLgjCTRJxLPMoWtNNh2AL PEO7+lR+j9RGIbNB+N0K66FrYp0PUuWOAC8MSW0ubRtbnN0mzZeJ8bOMHf4rQvFbrfdi 9igsWZBMruln8yq5vCkPVPIrkZj0SAk8Q13J3BIi7XEHWClP4uoxPuutx7SaxfhXOR96 er4MbGF0Ni8T/G3oxldhkyVYA3FncvHUK0XMa5rqdi5+CRxq+N1ygQXaX+xXfqgk7Xzx GT4Ia7CpTEgFgWIRdG2TCImFo05TdOcoo9gOTZOsVmcb/cgbXVSuN2YSVI6NV4tOOwOu jz7Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=uHQRIfVur9zfSFEWEaeiIoBJy84LkekYvVpmffziNxU=; b=abeZhrAYL07bEcL3uWeEVM+cDJrDk79BNp7lCcSDA+5V76tUafkY+FNchuGm2S/uf7 uQZ6zS+X8ZSf+36vJtHcqfr0y+arnYCzY0lqtPvXClkKh8FLb/ZEMtLEmUNqnw4c+pbL BqXOYZYZk+stw5nji7Me6S5eAC1UebSABgxAFM9JaactdjqlZBmoVIFJyJVAmf9joYSU 6m9K4dM67ySM5j13C6BCzDlNXGo3MIkK49GZatJqoIRmhpQf02/qcPrW/QnHmbtBxTeN gVSKXawmwLsNZupBwSY08FPKRBNlNlK81Z/dNb3X61Y4JVYhoEBoR7Qd/wqpH4lFMlbg 92Tg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo22LHda/SasjxeuxccGM4CdOnrq08aev/4VGlLOYNE01CvTSaNj 2OSo/zncOntmG5xtc+tuVM2dIZqCHm1KmPNZGNo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6YQmdaTItzEpQo41Xk0pVrI+/3a98SAmiqBIrEFhmVUGoEZIIJaJ79er3ZgcrW18Lmp6tfKefcKX1qAaQOAmY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9005:b0:16c:f62c:4376 with SMTP id a5-20020a170902900500b0016cf62c4376mr24211048plp.87.1660063571349; Tue, 09 Aug 2022 09:46:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220805062844.439152-1-fengwei.yin@intel.com> <9c16b712-b5e7-df79-e7de-0259086bb3a9@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Yang Shi Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 09:45:59 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: release private data before split THP To: Aaron Lu Cc: Yin Fengwei , linux-mm@kvack.org, naoya.horiguchi@nec.com, linmiaohe@huawei.com, willy@infradead.org, tony.luck@intel.com, qiuxu.zhuo@intel.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1660063572; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=uHQRIfVur9zfSFEWEaeiIoBJy84LkekYvVpmffziNxU=; b=Mxp/aivbPDmnEjjPIczltBMLOTqgYAFTvkSNkIIVdKGqiUckI5FkWn8iUuZtHkbGPM+/wI T2A5bPi4C6mqZdMcy2wr79QANK8MALi7Ih34sMY1bLOOxtHEtU0/sJzfXerMGK6aPBN+mp 1Ltm8dMnLdIBbhUFKetiGnFfMXsdJpk= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf13.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b="A6TEhR//"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (imf13.hostedemail.com: domain of shy828301@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.176 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shy828301@gmail.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1660063572; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=vnUEBQtslpB1YmteiTp/euGgJxoCTVUNyof6qTI/f2yv2AGxt6PLmHxk2JNXNGI/IhwvL5 4ICrxXHWBqwa4oolRq32cObcVa9u2LYmDdXgUfs1sRgA/DPfviMfgPrYgYeJ28eM28kgUc bPWzkjNVirBRex08+WcYeYKVUdE9fCs= Authentication-Results: imf13.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b="A6TEhR//"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (imf13.hostedemail.com: domain of shy828301@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.176 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shy828301@gmail.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Stat-Signature: ep6hnxhn7a8nze1foodta8bdf9zkndoc X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7053F20058 X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1660063572-915158 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 Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 2:08 AM Aaron Lu wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 09:12:57AM +0800, Yin Fengwei wrote: > > Hi Yang, > > > > On 2022/8/9 01:49, Yang Shi wrote: > > > The GFP_KERNEL is fine for most THP split callsites except for the > > > memory reclaim path since it might not allow certain flags to avoid > > > recursion, for example, nested reclaim, issue I/O, etc. The most > > > filesystems clear __GFP_FS. However it should not be a real life > > > problem now since AFAIK just xfs supports large folios for now and xfs > > > uses iomap release_folio() method which actually ignores gfp flags. > > Thanks a lot for the valuable comments. > > > > > > > > > > So it sounds safer to follow the gfp convention used by > > > xas_split_alloc() in the below. The best way is to pass in the gfp > > > flag from the reclaimer IMO, but it seems overkilling at the moment. > > > > It's possible that the gfp used by xas_split_alloc has __GFP_FS/IO set. > > What about to use current_gfp_context(gfp_as_xas_split_alloc)? > > > > Sounds reasonable to me. > > Also, the gfp used by xas_split_alloc() should also be modified to: > current_gfp_context(mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK)? > Since they are in the same context. Good point, fine to me.