From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, cl@linux.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
lstoakes@gmail.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com,
roman.gushchin@linux.dev, urezki@gmail.com,
v-songbaohua@oppo.com, virtualization@lists.linux.dev,
hailong.liu@oppo.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 5/5] non-mm: discourage the usage of __GFP_NOFAIL and encourage GFP_NOFAIL
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:31:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZqECPiU-3fJozzpB@tiehlicka> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZqEAUbtkIMCwVpgB@infradead.org>
On Wed 24-07-24 06:23:29, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 03:21:13PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Scope API is tricky here. Exactly because the scope itself could have
> > opportunistic GFP_NOWAIT allocations.
>
> Really, where? That just sounds f**cked up as callers using any kind
> of nofail API can be broken by a caller higher in the stack.
I do not see this a problem. There is no real reason to have a NOWAIT
allocation down the stack that has a different fallback strategy.
I am not saying that this is the current practice because I do not know
that but I am saying that this is not impossible to imagine and it makes
scoped NOFAIL context subtle and error prone.
> And that's totally independ of adding a NOFS/NOIO helper, so it'll need
> to be fixed.
>
> Adding more NOFS/NOIO wrappers while we're trying to kill the flag just
> is not helpful going forward.
NOFS, NOIO scopes are both compatible with NOFAIL and NOWAIT contexts.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-24 13:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-24 8:55 [PATCH 0/5] mm: clarify nofail memory allocation Barry Song
2024-07-24 8:55 ` [PATCH RFC 1/5] vpda: try to fix the potential crash due to misusing __GFP_NOFAIL Barry Song
2024-07-24 12:26 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-24 22:50 ` Barry Song
2024-07-25 6:08 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-25 7:00 ` Barry Song
2024-07-29 3:42 ` Jason Wang
2024-07-29 6:05 ` Barry Song
2024-07-30 2:48 ` Jason Wang
2024-07-30 3:08 ` Barry Song
2024-07-30 3:13 ` Jason Wang
2024-07-24 8:55 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm: Document __GFP_NOFAIL must be blockable Barry Song
2024-07-24 11:58 ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-03 23:09 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2024-07-24 8:55 ` [PATCH 3/5] mm: BUG_ON to avoid NULL deference while __GFP_NOFAIL fails Barry Song
2024-07-24 10:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-24 10:11 ` Barry Song
2024-07-24 12:10 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-24 8:55 ` [PATCH 4/5] mm: Introduce GFP_NOFAIL with the inclusion of __GFP_RECLAIM Barry Song
2024-07-24 12:12 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-24 8:55 ` [PATCH RFC 5/5] non-mm: discourage the usage of __GFP_NOFAIL and encourage GFP_NOFAIL Barry Song
2024-07-24 9:53 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-24 9:58 ` Barry Song
2024-07-24 13:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-24 12:25 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-24 13:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-24 13:21 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-24 13:23 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-24 13:31 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2024-07-24 13:33 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-24 13:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-24 13:47 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-24 13:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-24 14:39 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-24 14:41 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-25 1:47 ` Barry Song
2024-07-29 9:56 ` Barry Song
2024-07-29 10:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-29 10:16 ` Barry Song
2024-07-24 12:17 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-25 1:38 ` Barry Song
2024-07-25 6:16 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-26 21:08 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2024-07-29 11:50 ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-03 22:15 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2024-08-05 7:49 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-25 1:17 ` kernel test robot
2024-07-25 14:20 ` Dan Carpenter
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2024-07-25 6:38 kernel test robot
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=ZqECPiU-3fJozzpB@tiehlicka \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=hailong.liu@oppo.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lstoakes@gmail.com \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=v-songbaohua@oppo.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux.dev \
/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.