From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com (mail-wm0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 025A66B0005 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:08:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id u206so99240606wme.1 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 04:08:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com (mail-wm0-f67.google.com. [74.125.82.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w2si17798027wma.29.2016.04.11.04.08.20 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Apr 2016 04:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id a140so20426905wma.2 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 04:08:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Michal Hocko Subject: [PATCH 0/19] get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPORT Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:07:53 +0200 Message-Id: <1460372892-8157-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML , Andy Lutomirski , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Catalin Marinas , Chen Liqin , Chris Metcalf , Christian Borntraeger , Cornelia Huck , "David S. Miller" , Guan Xuetao , Helge Deller , Herbert Xu , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , "James E.J. Bottomley" , John Crispin , Lennox Wu , Ley Foon Tan , Matt Fleming , Michal Hocko , Mikulas Patocka , Rich Felker , Russell King , Shaohua Li , Theodore Ts'o , Thomas Gleixner , Vineet Gupta , Will Deacon , Yoshinori Sato Hi, this is the second version of the patchset previously sent [1] while working on something unrelated I've checked the current usage of __GFP_REPEAT in the tree. It seems that a majority of the usage is and always has been bogus because __GFP_REPEAT has always been about costly high order allocations while we are using it for order-0 or very small orders very often. It seems that a big pile of them is just a copy&paste when a code has been adopted from one arch to another. I think it makes some sense to get rid of them because they are just making the semantic more unclear. Please note that GFP_REPEAT is documented as * __GFP_REPEAT: Try hard to allocate the memory, but the allocation attempt * _might_ fail. This depends upon the particular VM implementation. while !costly requests have basically nofail semantic. So one could reasonably expect that order-0 request with __GFP_REPEAT will not loop for ever. This is not implemented right now though. I would like to move on with __GFP_REPEAT and define a better semantic for it. One thought was to rename it to __GFP_BEST_EFFORT which would behave consistently for all orders and guarantee that the allocation would try as long as it seem feasible or fail eventually. !costly request would then finally get a request context which neiter fails too early (GFP_NORETRY) nor endlessly loops in the allocator for ever (default behavior). Costly high order requests would keep the current semantic. $ git grep __GFP_REPEAT next/master | wc -l 111 $ git grep __GFP_REPEAT | wc -l 35 So we are down to the third after this patch series. The remaining places really seem to be relying on __GFP_REPEAT due to large allocation requests. This still needs some double checking which I will do later after all the simple ones are sorted out. I am touching a lot of arch specific code here and I hope I got it right but as a matter of fact I even didn't compile test for some archs as I do not have cross compiler for them. Patches should be quite trivial to review for stupid compile mistakes though. The tricky parts are usually hidden by macro definitions and thats where I would appreciate help from arch maintainers. I am also interested whether this makes sense in general. [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1446740160-29094-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org