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-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] mm: Drop __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM flag if PF_MEMALLOC is set
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2025 18:56:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aJYsOe3nxP6Nuwsz@pc636> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aJYGpPoaZwYZZ3Ze@tiehlicka>

On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 04:16:04PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 08-08-25 15:12:45, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 01:58:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 07-08-25 09:58:10, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > The memory allocator already avoids reclaim when PF_MEMALLOC is set.
> > > > Clear __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM explicitly to suppress might_alloc() warnings
> > > > to make more correct behavior.
> > > 
> > > Rather than chaning the gfp mask would it make more sense to update
> > > might_alloc instead?
> > > 
> > Hm.. I was thinking about it but decided to drop the __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM
> > instead just to guarantee a no-reclaim behaviour, as it is written now to
> > the flag.
> > 
> > >From the other hand after this patch we would have some unneeded/dead
> > checks(if i do not missing anything). For example:
> > 
> > [1]
> >     WARN_ON_ONCE(!can_direct_reclaim);
> >     /*
> >      * PF_MEMALLOC request from this context is rather bizarre
> >      * because we cannot reclaim anything and only can loop waiting
> >      * for somebody to do a work for us.
> >      */
> >     WARN_ON_ONCE(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC);
> > [2]
> >     /* no reclaim without waiting on it */
> >     if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM))
> >         return false;
> > 
> >     /* this guy won't enter reclaim */
> >     if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
> >         return false;
> > 
> > [3]
> >     /* Caller is not willing to reclaim, we can't balance anything */
> >     if (!can_direct_reclaim)
> >         goto nopage;
> > 
> >     /* Avoid recursion of direct reclaim */
> >     if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
> >         goto nopage;
> > etc.
> > 
> > But, yes, might_alloc() can be modified also.
> 
> I do not have a _strong_ preference but my slight preference would be to
> deal with this in might_alloc. Not sure what other think.
> 
No problem, that i can easily switch to.

--
Uladzisau Rezki


  reply	other threads:[~2025-08-08 16:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-08-07  7:58 [PATCH 0/8] __vmalloc() and no-block support Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2025-08-07  7:58 ` [PATCH 1/8] lib/test_vmalloc: add no_block_alloc_test case Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2025-08-07  7:58 ` [PATCH 2/8] lib/test_vmalloc: Remove xfail condition check Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2025-08-07  7:58 ` [PATCH 3/8] mm/vmalloc: Support non-blocking GFP flags in alloc_vmap_area() Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2025-08-07 11:20   ` Michal Hocko
2025-08-08  9:59     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-08-18  2:11   ` Baoquan He
2025-08-07  7:58 ` [PATCH 4/8] mm/vmalloc: Remove cond_resched() in vm_area_alloc_pages() Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2025-08-07 11:22   ` Michal Hocko
2025-08-08 10:08     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-08-18  2:14   ` Baoquan He
2025-08-07  7:58 ` [PATCH 5/8] mm/kasan, mm/vmalloc: Respect GFP flags in kasan_populate_vmalloc() Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2025-08-07 16:05   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2025-08-08 10:18     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-08-07  7:58 ` [PATCH 6/8] mm/vmalloc: Defer freeing partly initialized vm_struct Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2025-08-07 11:25   ` Michal Hocko
2025-08-08 10:37     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-08-18  4:21   ` Baoquan He
2025-08-18 13:02     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-08-19  8:56       ` Baoquan He
2025-08-19  9:20         ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-08-07  7:58 ` [PATCH 7/8] mm/vmalloc: Support non-blocking GFP flags in __vmalloc_area_node() Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2025-08-07 11:54   ` Michal Hocko
2025-08-08 11:54     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-08-18  4:35   ` Baoquan He
2025-08-18 13:08     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-08-19  8:46       ` Baoquan He
2025-08-07  7:58 ` [PATCH 8/8] mm: Drop __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM flag if PF_MEMALLOC is set Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2025-08-07 11:58   ` Michal Hocko
2025-08-08 13:12     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-08-08 14:16       ` Michal Hocko
2025-08-08 16:56         ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
2025-08-07 11:01 ` [PATCH 0/8] __vmalloc() and no-block support Marco Elver
2025-08-08  8:48   ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-08-23  9:35     ` Uladzislau Rezki

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=aJYsOe3nxP6Nuwsz@pc636 \
    --to=urezki@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bhe@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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