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 AFEA5C531DF for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:15:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 2CA206B036C; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 12:15:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 251316B036D; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 12:15:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 118EA6B036E; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 12:15:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E11A16B036C for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 12:15:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCC08013A for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:15:20 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82458608400.02.30382A5 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by imf07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C6E40015 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:15:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=jEDZgyiG; spf=pass (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of bhe@redhat.com designates 170.10.129.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bhe@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1723824905; 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=atbfBzbpVJrrinLTFjpDdZ++CnkCWoD354k0n5MAo1Q=; b=H/9mVhxZfy1uyGpAdHZ1U3v+dUjuSUCKLi5ZWqzpsPjmq1IWdAwgswmkPdicb6RcKx2bN7 +QZLsHJKrc9eMyXgG0cx7BMqIza309uXMMz9p7c6TlL6h55vbwlswwYYb533WfGe5i0IxJ m7Z6a08kZsVmYdG9tJCdBa0SGgE5jBU= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=jEDZgyiG; spf=pass (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of bhe@redhat.com designates 170.10.129.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bhe@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1723824905; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=JHkRjq5mqwRZiCjm3IHJ+h0IaQOAlW1EimEHIXwvs/9QmppZif0vTWfqk7I++orh+6P4Q7 epaNaWyA+OTOOKS/JUtMl4AyNNuI8KYf6aHRCyvNvglW7ZBkDW8LdB59USM0oDwTgpIS/g u9Vqr3YPYdM97eZZBR5u1wM6NPtXbZU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1723824918; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject: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=atbfBzbpVJrrinLTFjpDdZ++CnkCWoD354k0n5MAo1Q=; b=jEDZgyiGXsgJHzqnM6x45OucLZLG7pYY474lSV7QS08IhdTABH+b9TT8DWY3eoczCI1nOW 2DWYPQzCjAT0ivV3xSFeiuGtyCytfYL8hqu86zSeKW2cLWM9uzWBoQpQ79ZeTOlPLVw4U7 5E5kzJPVO9TQHFl+xakqx3AmwxUj0dA= Received: from mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-623-eH51UxaOOpaSwzACwZCeXA-1; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 12:15:15 -0400 X-MC-Unique: eH51UxaOOpaSwzACwZCeXA-1 Received: from mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD0DA1954227; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:15:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.72.112.51]) by mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 205053001FE5; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:15:10 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 00:15:05 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Uladzislau Rezki Cc: Hailong Liu , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>, Christoph Hellwig , Vlastimil Babka , Tangquan Zheng , stable@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1] mm/vmalloc: fix page mapping if vm_area_alloc_pages() with high order fallback to order 0 Message-ID: References: <20240808122019.3361-1-hailong.liu@oppo.com> <20240815220709.47f66f200fd0a072777cc348@linux-foundation.org> <20240816091232.fsliktqgza5o5x6t@oppo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.4 X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: m9t67xehgeak7t95rd853i67ktx3s93c X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: D8C6E40015 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam11 X-HE-Tag: 1723824918-532868 X-HE-Meta: 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 Cw+vri1C 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 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: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 08/17/24 at 12:11am, Baoquan He wrote: > On 08/16/24 at 12:13pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 05:12:32PM +0800, Hailong Liu wrote: > > > On Thu, 15. Aug 22:07, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 11:41:42 +0200 Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Barry Song > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because we already have a fallback here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > void *__vmalloc_node_range_noprof : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail: > > > > > > > if (shift > PAGE_SHIFT) { > > > > > > > shift = PAGE_SHIFT; > > > > > > > align = real_align; > > > > > > > size = real_size; > > > > > > > goto again; > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > This really deserves a comment because this is not really clear at all. > > > > > > The code is also fragile and it would benefit from some re-org. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the fix. > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. This is only clear for people who know the code. A "fallback" > > > > > to order-0 should be commented. > > > > > > > > It's been a week. Could someone please propose a fixup patch to add > > > > this comment? > > > > > > Hi Andrew: > > > > > > Do you mean that I need to send a v2 patch with the the comments included? > > > > > It is better to post v2. > > > > But before, could you please comment on: > > > > in case of order-0, bulk path may easily fail and fallback to the single > > page allocator. If an request is marked as NO_FAIL, i am talking about > > order-0 request, your change breaks GFP_NOFAIL for !order. > > In case order-0, bulk_gfp masks off __GFP_NOFAIL, but alloc_gfp doesn't. > So alloc_gfp has __GFP_NOFAIL in fallback, it won't be failed by > alloc_pages(). Please ignore this, I didn't update my local mail box, didn't see Hailong's reply.