From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 19:23:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211029172307.GA2944@pc638.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YXwI7+1bQNECvBz4@dhcp22.suse.cz>
> On Fri 29-10-21 16:05:32, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> [...]
> > > OK, this looks easier from the code reading but isn't it quite wasteful
> > > to throw all the pages backing the area (all of them allocated as
> > > __GFP_NOFAIL) just to then fail to allocate few page tables pages and
> > > drop all of that on the floor (this will happen in __vunmap AFAICS).
> > >
> > > I mean I do not care all that strongly but it seems to me that more
> > > changes would need to be done here and optimizations can be done on top.
> > >
> > > Is this something you feel strongly about?
> > >
> > Will try to provide some motivations :)
> >
> > It depends on how to look at it. My view is as follows a more simple code
> > is preferred. It is not considered as a hot path and it is rather a corner
> > case to me.
>
> Yes, we are definitely talking about corner cases here. Even GFP_KERNEL
> allocations usually do not fail.
>
> > I think "unwinding" has some advantage. At least one motivation
> > is to release a memory(on failure) before a delay that will prevent holding
> > of extra memory in case of __GFP_NOFAIL infinitelly does not succeed, i.e.
> > if a process stuck due to __GFP_NOFAIL it does not "hold" an extra memory
> > forever.
>
> Well, I suspect this is something that we can disagree on and both of us
> would be kinda right. I would see it as throwing baby out with the
> bathwater. The vast majority of the memory will be in the area pages and
> sacrificing that just to allocate few page tables or whatever that might
> fail in that code path is just a lot of cycles wasted.
>
We are not talking about performance, no sense to measure cycles here :)
>
> So unless you really feel strongly about this then I would stick with
> this approach.
>
I have raised one concern. The memory resource is shared between all
process in case of __GFP_NOFAIL it might be that we never return back
to user in that scenario i prefer to release hold memory for other
needs instead of keeping it for nothing.
If you think it is not a problem, then i do not have much to say.
--
Vlad Rezki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-29 17:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-25 15:02 [PATCH 0/4] extend vmalloc support for constrained allocations Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 15:02 ` [PATCH 1/4] mm/vmalloc: alloc GFP_NO{FS,IO} for vmalloc Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 15:02 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 22:59 ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26 7:03 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-26 10:30 ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26 11:29 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-26 15:48 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-10-26 16:28 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-26 19:33 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-10-27 6:46 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-27 17:55 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-10-29 7:57 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-29 14:05 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-10-29 14:45 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-29 17:23 ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
2021-10-25 15:02 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm/vmalloc: be more explicit about supported gfp flags Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 23:26 ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26 7:10 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-26 10:43 ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26 12:20 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 15:02 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm: allow !GFP_KERNEL allocations for kvmalloc Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 23:34 ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26 7:15 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-26 10:48 ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26 12:23 ` Michal Hocko
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=20211029172307.GA2944@pc638.lan \
--to=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=idryomov@gmail.com \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.