All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 10:16:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170309091628.GD11592@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170308150659.GA24535@infradead.org>

On Wed 08-03-17 07:06:59, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:42PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > 
> > KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
> > so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for the given set
> > of flags. This means that small allocations actually never failed.
> > 
> > Now that we have __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL flag which works independently on the
> > allocation request size we can map KM_MAYFAIL to it. The allocator will
> > try as hard as it can to fulfill the request but fails eventually if
> > the progress cannot be made.
> 
> I don't think we really need this - KM_MAYFAIL is basically just
> a flag to not require the retry loop around kmalloc for those places
> in XFS that can deal with allocation failures.  But if the default
> behavior is to not fail we'll happily take that.

Does that mean that you are happy to go OOM and trigger the OOM killer
even when you know that the failure can be handled gracefully?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 10:16:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170309091628.GD11592@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170308150659.GA24535@infradead.org>

On Wed 08-03-17 07:06:59, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:42PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > 
> > KM_MAYFAIL didn't have any suitable GFP_FOO counterpart until recently
> > so it relied on the default page allocator behavior for the given set
> > of flags. This means that small allocations actually never failed.
> > 
> > Now that we have __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL flag which works independently on the
> > allocation request size we can map KM_MAYFAIL to it. The allocator will
> > try as hard as it can to fulfill the request but fails eventually if
> > the progress cannot be made.
> 
> I don't think we really need this - KM_MAYFAIL is basically just
> a flag to not require the retry loop around kmalloc for those places
> in XFS that can deal with allocation failures.  But if the default
> behavior is to not fail we'll happily take that.

Does that mean that you are happy to go OOM and trigger the OOM killer
even when you know that the failure can be handled gracefully?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-03-09  9:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-07 15:48 [RFC PATCH 0/4 v2] mm: give __GFP_REPEAT a better semantic Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48 ` [PATCH 1/4] s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48   ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08  8:23   ` Heiko Carstens
2017-03-08  8:23     ` Heiko Carstens
2017-03-08 14:11     ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08 14:11       ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-09  8:27       ` Heiko Carstens
2017-03-09  8:27         ` Heiko Carstens
2017-03-07 15:48 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] mm, tree wide: replace __GFP_REPEAT by __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL with more useful semantic Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48   ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-25  1:21   ` NeilBrown
2017-05-31 11:42     ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-31 11:42       ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-03  2:24   ` Wei Yang
2017-06-05  6:43     ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-05  6:43       ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-06  3:04       ` Wei Yang
2017-06-06 12:03         ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-06 12:03           ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-07  2:10           ` Wei Yang
2017-06-09  7:32             ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-09  7:32               ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48   ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 17:05   ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-03-07 17:05     ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-03-08  9:35     ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08  9:35       ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08 11:23   ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-03-08 11:23     ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-03-08 12:54     ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08 12:54       ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08 15:06   ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-08 15:06     ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-09  9:16     ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-03-09  9:16       ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] mm: kvmalloc support __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL for all sizes Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48   ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-16  9:10 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4 v2] mm: give __GFP_REPEAT a better semantic Michal Hocko
2017-05-16  9:10   ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-23  8:12   ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-23  8:12     ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-24  1:06     ` NeilBrown
2017-05-24  7:34       ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-24  7:34         ` Michal Hocko

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=20170309091628.GD11592@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.