Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers

Michal Hocko
2016-12-14T08:59:16Z

On Tue 13-12-16 14:07:33, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 11:14 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Are there any more comments or objections to this patch? Is this a good
> > start or kv[mz]alloc has to provide a way to cover GFP_NOFS users as
> > well in the initial version.
>
> Did Andrew Morton ever comment on this?
> I believe he was the primary objector in the past.
>
> Last I recollect was over a year ago:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/7/1050

Let me quote:
: Sigh. We've resisted doing this because vmalloc() is somewhat of a bad
: thing, and we don't want to make it easy for people to do bad things.
:
: And vmalloc is bad because a) it's slow and b) it does GFP_KERNEL
: allocations for page tables and c) it is susceptible to arena
: fragmentation.
:
: We'd prefer that people fix their junk so it doesn't depend upon large
: contiguous allocations. This isn't userspace - kernel space is hostile
: and kernel code should be robust.
:
: So I dunno. Should we continue to make it a bit more awkward to use
: vmalloc()? Probably that tactic isn't being very successful - people
: will just go ahead and open-code it. And given the surprising amount
: of stuff you've placed in kvmalloc_node(), they'll implement it
: incorrectly...
:
: How about we compromise: add kvmalloc_node(), but include a BUG_ON("you
: suck") to it?

While I agree with some of those points, the reality really sucks,
though. We have tried the same tactic with __GFP_NOFAIL and failed as
well. I guess we should just bite the bullet and provide an api which is
so common that people keep reinventing their own ways around that, many
times wrongly or suboptimally. BUG_ON("you suck") is just not going to
help much I am afraid.

What do you think Andrew?