From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED93215AD83 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:41:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721832103; cv=none; b=sbVmQ4hI7D3/85zwRfQKHU+HgWCPaa2I09RKv6uDEn6a1QPV982GFazNMhymHvjxZUPMJCNO0U9SM07DnYq2iNqaWKpLlUeb6U+T0egk7u8PTi58VGmR5uLl8sgz7ZpZle00msyXodL7hQ3V+/6K0Hf9pu/IRcep+elxcl4MQeE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721832103; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NGup4d420CVuQK0YfcZV/QTTJ5BDVZMKk9C05yJC+zU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=B8E5bRbI1tjHm1rynLBeCONQA3i3+MKWsg++hDtGmrZeUZLlEmdkG0WcxyMde5HdluLZ17xZjwbrwEdfs4T8p+jRcvpcSe+KP8SZCdEu5PFMjqBVeXjc0sPmeLppoL48glQRaBXWP4zWXJBtTGXTQq4RdXSAYyEXy5a5Rus+XHI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=sSBynAQ6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="sSBynAQ6" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding :Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=crMY3yh38upJJIZqKdBkz6jKnqXn28NamV7YqV6NS/s=; b=sSBynAQ6F/fAVILYBCQxEtrV71 xyRh2ORRd1ET7ZmGKxrbXDit7f1kvTuE6C+cxh1/fQ+bofqsJhw+Lg5g1CrseBjYE2J3t44khsTA7 F5VuHRiK6juMHBXxEdoJy436ZR+VYpWfs50F1QouiyW5RnkJeDbsCl7svnuNpbQm2nPshc9+rpr3u kJBAp/1S/nweLxOkcONJER8/Vc+xnEka6UndCWBZU1X1/x6RK0nj9CMkIUklwg7yhkmUJXl0xDvQd j0gmgu/ZvGw+PDQMzDGv4zC/x+wB/dxTTFQngp9Jiqw+r+WyNVWAfX0omPL2xXvJbO0mw0+cCiPUW hvMgAujQ==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sWdBP-0000000Fdci-3Hfd; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:41:35 +0000 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 07:41:35 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Michal Hocko , 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 Message-ID: References: <68ee812b-3b96-4c8b-9a54-70d4742488bb@suse.cz> <400b2f6f-f7f0-4888-99ee-7327faad7e5c@suse.cz> <5b9fa06a-bcef-447c-899b-fe3fb10315bf@suse.cz> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: virtualization@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5b9fa06a-bcef-447c-899b-fe3fb10315bf@suse.cz> X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 04:39:11PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 7/24/24 3:55 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 03:47:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> OK, now it makes more sense ;) I have absolutely no objections to > >> prefering scoped NO{FS,IO} interfaces of course. And that would indeed > >> eliminate a need for defining GFP_NO{FS,IO}_NOFAIL alternatives. > > > > Yes. My proposal would be: > > > > GFP_NOFAIL without any modifiers it the only valid nofail API. > > Where GFP_NOFAIL is GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL (and not the more limited one > as defined in patch 4/5). Yes. > > File systems / drivers can combine іt with the scoped nofs/noio if > > needed. > > Sounds good, how quickly we can convert existing __GFP_NOFAIL users remains > to be seen... I took a quick look at the file system ones and they look pretty easy. I think it would be good to a quick scriped run for everything that does GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL right now, and then spend a little time on the rest.