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=-5.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 2FFEAC4346E for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 08:21:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0A720739 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 08:21:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="kYjuvZ+i" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727767AbgI2IVY (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2020 04:21:24 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33206 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725468AbgI2IVY (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2020 04:21:24 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1601367682; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=KFyfyEQCS1dcCR4BhfL+zwiQ3CuzyAy4x23tr+VkzjE=; b=kYjuvZ+ilRICWeNF3tv+sX4B6qR0l26SNFX+2yuqmAbG6VZsVdy+/ab4DWFA/2mAPMzvho sWiMi4hR4DtnoNBd3zA9aScladT2LR3g7zk3zp4xXinjBQFShKRtNv5abZ+aKM+mJdoLfs LfJPGyvdVLHOxuKwI+4KWXzshc3e4XY= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4162CACA3; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 08:21:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:21:21 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Daniel Vetter Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , Juri Lelli , Peter Zijlstra , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Lai Jiangshan , dri-devel , Ben Segall , Linux-MM , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon , Ingo Molnar , Anton Ivanov , linux-arch , Vincent Guittot , Herbert Xu , Brian Cain , Richard Weinberger , Russell King , Ard Biesheuvel , David Airlie , Ingo Molnar , Geert Uytterhoeven , Mel Gorman , intel-gfx , Matt Turner , Valentin Schneider , linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Shuah Khan , Jeff Dike , linux-um , Josh Triplett , Steven Rostedt , rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k , Ivan Kokshaysky , Rodrigo Vivi , Thomas Gleixner , Dietmar Eggemann , Linux ARM , Richard Henderson , Chris Zankel , Max Filippov , Daniel Bristot de Oliveira , LKML , alpha , Mathieu Desnoyers , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional Message-ID: <20200929081938.GC22035@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <871rj4owfn.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <87bli75t7v.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200916152956.GV29330@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200916205840.GD29330@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20200929082121.l4gss6SIN9tyRe6VEIsJWTGiayhPkJ0y8Z3Y42P4wCU@z> On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote: > I can > then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with > call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these > critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here? > most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL > never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback > path than rcu code. Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation. Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure. This is not a random allocation mode. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs