From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0F6C1975A for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 17:26:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBCE720772 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 17:26:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="t2mxrtbd" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CBCE720772 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 1C95C6B00B5; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:26:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 178626B00B7; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:26:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 0671F6B00BC; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:26:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0100.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.100]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D7A6B00B5 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:26:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin24.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD58918038CF6 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 17:26:48 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76634564496.24.bead07_1e4f5761f3143 X-HE-Tag: bead07_1e4f5761f3143 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4960 Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com (mail-wm1-f68.google.com [209.85.128.68]) by imf47.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 17:26:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id m3so3714336wmi.0 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 10:26:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0/Cbd5nZaAl/WveUubrHFoD6ZChLzwoiIinmFZ0leMA=; b=t2mxrtbdHVN1WLU8iulG4odVsNBF/DAatLW3ywzsiB19tnFoRBLi8wx0P7f61m3Nxk sbAFsKo/72EHOwcc2qCnfKsBTofDDiRMa75D6zyDhIHDMz6rhf3mXcAqfCohVlWWM2ep CSdvJ8OfHFgp0Zmv7ViYTAEpo7pPGlOJjaUKeHLEwTbsM8kqSkATaihkaZjJ+MyCyouG IBJkRE7g9aBQotsj0xu04QOX7rCfUCEtBY+a9g4Feh5Zcq1dxUoS682Wo4StttU5BZOO u6+hVsYB2VIK7NQtnE5cevkGRg0W8p48/Pi5SvZaICy+XtOHWchkVnLiO8q7YsDkWoo9 wMKw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0/Cbd5nZaAl/WveUubrHFoD6ZChLzwoiIinmFZ0leMA=; b=oSRtjOILjQMAwGSaWBp9KhkN2Ka/BA1Dy/RtTCnuqOVMEu5E5WySRbJWDZQElrbroL hd+b9/Y5M7C9iFIbKVyuYR0KK5UhRFMfntoeTefkH6qwpWvdzezlwrGFUeRb4fB9ersg QI1//W4HM3BHJlzI9IK+QPaNghAC7pVcTznmOsb/YpploGIwDRaO7+LK3aAyO601Hm2D /CUdD2W8AuVfGqrzhDC9oCfmOhZD1h5VxvWItkhtzotMBZS2m91x6ZkTTizWYU4Rx4f0 rvJZxY7dv5d0Ed01hl/jgRdedFb5OBE5GBbXTdeJgllvGhAHjOO3N0JYETi9RA0W5mGK Q0uw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1U15u7ma7k7Bhy5J8VhagCsXWv1QpVYmln04w1hQbmQ6OnRMCk 7qLi+9/pt+ffTCn7kCRDXrSWLkHs2KbhV5TRF5vTKw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtK1Zsra0UgSJI9FMjLYwcwjAn+rADvk7hSDl58FAreDeQ4wzPsYwgi9TVJvOGHBufjULS4SSqteC9aOna0dU8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:22c1:: with SMTP id 1mr4155909wmg.29.1585157206420; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 10:26:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200325161249.55095-1-glider@google.com> <20200325161249.55095-4-glider@google.com> <20200325161952.GF19542@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20200325161952.GF19542@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Alexander Potapenko Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 18:26:34 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/38] kmsan: gfp: introduce __GFP_NO_KMSAN_SHADOW To: Michal Hocko Cc: Vegard Nossum , Andrew Morton , Dmitry Vyukov , Marco Elver , Andrey Konovalov , Linux Memory Management List , Al Viro , Andreas Dilger , Andrey Ryabinin , Andy Lutomirski , Ard Biesheuvel , Arnd Bergmann , Christoph Hellwig , Christoph Hellwig , "Darrick J. Wong" , David Miller , Dmitry Torokhov , Eric Biggers , Eric Dumazet , Eric Van Hensbergen , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Harry Wentland , Herbert Xu , Ilya Leoshkevich , Ingo Molnar , Jason Wang , Jens Axboe , Marek Szyprowski , Mark Rutland , "Martin K . Petersen" , Martin Schwidefsky , Matthew Wilcox , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Michal Simek , Petr Mladek , Qian Cai , Randy Dunlap , Robin Murphy , Sergey Senozhatsky , Steven Rostedt , Takashi Iwai , "Theodore Ts'o" , Thomas Gleixner , Vasily Gorbik , Wolfram Sang Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 5:19 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 25-03-20 17:12:14, glider@google.com wrote: > > This flag is to be used by KMSAN runtime to mark that newly created > > memory pages don't need KMSAN metadata backing them. > > I really dislike an idea of the gfp flag. If you need some form of > exclusion for kmsan allocations then follow the pattern of memalloc_no{fs,io}_{save,restore} > History tells us that single usecase gfp flags are too tempting to abuse > and using incorrectly. Great idea, will do! Guess PF_ flags isn't a scarce resource?