From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Subject: [PATCH 0/6 v3] Discard __GFP_ATOMIC
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 11:12:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230113111217.14134-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net> (raw)
This replaces the "Discard __GFP_ATOMIC v2" series in mm-unstable. There
are changelog and patch replacements that make -fix patches impractical.
Changelog since v2
o Non-blocking (GFP_NOWAIT) allocations get no reserve access (mhocko)
o __GFP_NOFAIL before OOM reserve access reduced (mhocko)
o Changelog clarifications (mhocko)
o Note that rt_task treatment to be deleted in changelog (mhocko)
o One ack dropped as the patch changed enough to invalidate it
Changelog since v1
o Split one patch (vbabka)
o Improve OOM reserve handling (vbabka)
o Fix __GFP_RECLAIM vs __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM (vbabka)
Neil's patch has been residing in mm-unstable as commit 2fafb4fe8f7a
("mm: discard __GFP_ATOMIC") for a long time and recently brought up
again. Most recently, I was worried that __GFP_HIGH allocations could
use high-order atomic reserves which is unintentional but there was no
response so lets revisit -- this series reworks how min reserves are used,
protects highorder reserves and then finishes with Neil's patch with very
minor modifications so it fits on top.
There was a review discussion on renaming __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM to
__GFP_ALLOW_BLOCKING but I didn't think it was that big an issue and is
ortogonal to the removal of __GFP_ATOMIC.
There were some concerns about how the gfp flags affect the min reserves
but it never reached a solid conclusion so I made my own attempt.
The series tries to iron out some of the details on how reserves are
used. ALLOC_HIGH becomes ALLOC_MIN_RESERVE and ALLOC_HARDER becomes
ALLOC_NON_BLOCK and documents how the reserves are affected. For example,
ALLOC_NON_BLOCK (no direct reclaim) on its own allows 25% of the min reserve.
ALLOC_MIN_RESERVE (__GFP_HIGH) allows 50% and both combined allows deeper
access again. ALLOC_OOM allows access to 75%.
High-order atomic allocations are explicitly handled with the caveat that
no __GFP_ATOMIC flag means that any high-order allocation that specifies
GFP_HIGH and cannot enter direct reclaim will be treated as if it was
GFP_ATOMIC.
Documentation/mm/balance.rst | 2 +-
drivers/iommu/tegra-smmu.c | 4 +-
include/linux/gfp_types.h | 12 ++--
include/trace/events/mmflags.h | 1 -
lib/test_printf.c | 8 +--
mm/internal.h | 15 ++++-
mm/page_alloc.c | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------
tools/perf/builtin-kmem.c | 1 -
8 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
--
2.35.3
next reply other threads:[~2023-01-13 11:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-13 11:12 Mel Gorman [this message]
2023-01-13 11:12 ` [PATCH 1/6] mm/page_alloc: Rename ALLOC_HIGH to ALLOC_MIN_RESERVE Mel Gorman
2023-01-13 11:12 ` [PATCH 2/6] mm/page_alloc: Treat RT tasks similar to __GFP_HIGH Mel Gorman
2023-01-13 11:12 ` [PATCH 3/6] mm/page_alloc: Explicitly record high-order atomic allocations in alloc_flags Mel Gorman
2023-01-13 13:02 ` Michal Hocko
2023-01-13 11:12 ` [PATCH 4/6] mm/page_alloc: Explicitly define what alloc flags deplete min reserves Mel Gorman
2023-01-13 11:12 ` [PATCH 5/6] mm/page_alloc: Explicitly define how __GFP_HIGH non-blocking allocations accesses reserves Mel Gorman
2023-01-13 13:06 ` Michal Hocko
2023-02-07 13:32 ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-01-13 11:12 ` [PATCH 6/6] mm: discard __GFP_ATOMIC Mel Gorman
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=20230113111217.14134-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).