From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: clarify __GFP_MEMALLOC usage
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 12:05:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a7520c0f-4285-4661-1281-ca343361407a@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87h7xmu3di.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
On 2020-04-13 20:56, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13 2020, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>> I've rather lost the plot with this little patch. Is the below
>> suitable, or do we think that changes are needed?
>>
I recall we were trying to talk Neil into adding some of his writings
into Documentation/core-api/memory-allocation.rst, and then refer to
that from here. But that would be a separate patch I think.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
>>
>> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>> Subject: mm: clarify __GFP_MEMALLOC usage
>>
>> It seems that the existing documentation is not explicit about the
>> expected usage and potential risks enough. While it is calls out that
>> users have to free memory when using this flag it is not really apparent
>> that users have to careful to not deplete memory reserves and that they
>> should implement some sort of throttling wrt. freeing process.
>>
>> This is partly based on Neil's explanation [1].
>>
>> Let's also call out that a pre allocated pool allocator should be
>> considered.
>>
>> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/877dz0yxoa.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name
>>
>> [akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding style fixes]
>> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200403083543.11552-2-mhocko@kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
>> Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
>> Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
>> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
>> Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
>> [mhocko@kernel.org: update]
>> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200406070137.GC19426@dhcp22.suse.cz
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>> ---
>>
>> include/linux/gfp.h | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> --- a/include/linux/gfp.h~mm-clarify-__gfp_memalloc-usage
>> +++ a/include/linux/gfp.h
>> @@ -110,6 +110,11 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
>> * the caller guarantees the allocation will allow more memory to be freed
>> * very shortly e.g. process exiting or swapping. Users either should
>> * be the MM or co-ordinating closely with the VM (e.g. swap over NFS).
>> + * Users of this flag have to be extremely careful to not deplete the reserve
>> + * completely and implement a throttling mechanism which controls the
>> + * consumption of the reserve based on the amount of freed memory.
>> + * Usage of a pre-allocated pool (e.g. mempool) should be always considered
>> + * before using this flag.
>
> I particularly don't like the connection between the consumption and the
> amount freed. I don't think that say anything useful and it misses the
> main point which, I think, is having a bound on total usage.
>
> Nichal's previous proposal is, I think, the best concrete proposal so
> far.
>
> NeilBrown
>
>> *
>> * %__GFP_NOMEMALLOC is used to explicitly forbid access to emergency reserves.
>> * This takes precedence over the %__GFP_MEMALLOC flag if both are set.
>> _
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-14 19:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-03 8:35 [PATCH 0/2] mm: few refinements to gfp flags documentation Michal Hocko
2020-04-03 8:35 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: clarify __GFP_MEMALLOC usage Michal Hocko
2020-04-03 19:41 ` David Rientjes
2020-04-03 21:23 ` NeilBrown
2020-04-06 7:01 ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-06 19:02 ` John Hubbard
2020-04-06 23:32 ` David Rientjes
2020-04-06 23:40 ` John Hubbard
2020-04-14 2:15 ` Andrew Morton
2020-04-14 3:56 ` NeilBrown
2020-04-14 19:05 ` John Hubbard [this message]
2020-04-07 1:00 ` NeilBrown
2020-04-07 1:21 ` John Hubbard
2020-04-07 7:24 ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-03 8:35 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: make it clear that gfp reclaim modifiers are valid only for sleepable allocations Michal Hocko
2020-04-03 19:41 ` David Rientjes
2020-04-07 1:38 ` Joel Fernandes
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=a7520c0f-4285-4661-1281-ca343361407a@nvidia.com \
--to=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/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).