From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: generic adaptive large memory allocation APIs
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 18:05:25 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <20100513174512.2179.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
References: <20100513134124.2164.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <4BEBBBBB.3050201@suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:42100 "EHLO
	fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754287Ab0EMJF3 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 13 May 2010 05:05:29 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4BEBBBBB.3050201@suse.cz>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

Hi

> > Hi
> > 
> >> void *kvmalloc(size_t size)
> >> {
> >> 	void *ptr;
> >>
> >> 	if (size < PAGE_SIZE)
> >> 		return kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> 	ptr = alloc_pages_exact(size, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > 
> > low order GFP_KERNEL allocation never fail. then, this doesn't works
> > as you expected.
> 
> Hi, I suppose you mean the kmalloc allocation -- so kmalloc should fail
> iff alloc_pages_exact (unless somebody frees a heap of memory indeed)?

I mean, if size of alloc_pages_exact() argument is less than 8 pages,
alloc_pages_exact() never fail. see __alloc_pages_slowpath().

> 
> >> 	if (ptr != NULL)
> >> 		return ptr;
> >>
> >> 	return vmalloc(size);
> > 
> > On x86, vmalloc area is only 128MB address space. it is very rare 
> > resource than physical ram. vmalloc fallback is not good idea.
> 
> These functions are a replacement for explicit
> if (!(x = kmalloc()))
>    x = vmalloc();
> ...
> if (is_vmalloc(x))
>   vfree(x);
> else
>   kfree(x);
> in the code (like fdtable does this).
> 
> The 128M limit on x86_32 for vmalloc is configurable so if drivers in
> sum need more on some specific hardware, it can be increased on the
> command line (I had to do this on one machine in the past).

Right, but 99% end user don't do this. I don't think this is effective advise.


> Anyway as this is a replacement for explicit tests, it shouldn't change
> the behaviour in any way. Obviously when a user doesn't need virtually
> contiguous space, he shouldn't use this interface at all.

Why can't we make fdtable virtually contiguous free?
Anyway, alloc_fdmem() also don't works as author expected.