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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 927D0C48BD5 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 19:52:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E3B208CB for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 19:52:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="cg40kmVD" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727792AbfFYTw3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:52:29 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f66.google.com ([209.85.210.66]:42850 "EHLO mail-ot1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727652AbfFYTw3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:52:29 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f66.google.com with SMTP id l15so62223otn.9 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:52:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=w0iye/3d1d43WiqVq+yINWIQnPqAw8A16FUwAjTLITU=; b=cg40kmVDe098Yeal1OpwCn3OtKBjzRnBRkGsDiRkJlBZmoYI19FP8EGzmZENBKS9gc y85l2sQkHTXgqXraL4kaAGyPSS89BlMic0a5IYD4ijt8AaGI5dAMpm1LqTsvqtZ0PA18 /sFXK4G4VbfJsBTSuI7jnUNqry2IT3CR4rWFZDFAIwwgF0wpO56iBYn1OrWh8zMn5H5U UiXxOJDTdDUZ1sp/qT4gDr5qxfq60VgObAV3QcEkH8aWy3k9rRcTQ+1xwDIMTbjb/rOl vLBtj451wwdwT3Iv/y3LeY44bWSWgm5KwxP2Hkh4f45wvrSWUrzPcQdtg3gHbAGRQLJ3 R1iQ== 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=w0iye/3d1d43WiqVq+yINWIQnPqAw8A16FUwAjTLITU=; b=G6WaPJ5Ql8UvCaggDlZ+BseNQxjrUgq9YrWrQR1zgiuOIw9qNqULZWWnu8R6Zi2Y+z piOks0uGmoRrSnRbXqTjA8EdhKhc2tUuaGGrI3HlBvSJcduiT8IPVuiwLFyZTJOk8Zib CSvTXFNKttvMKEaeuMDEft0h7inooRg87VPB22S/eh4YVApm6lUVE9xvyMeqWXnURjYY +N6mMgBomfYH3Pjznc+aFunElPwg0DuaocBotd3IV8b/GaROaKufaCjSs3MVQzpqiasc D20xCULiLZbjbYdztEqNSYuQWrBlVUGO5z7Nxz417e2Kh+hMK1nBg1EF/SvXj/cBAhq1 XV7w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXvzOuTefTOA54kqV71/Z+eCcXuE/jrjcOlCBJg5nP5M0YLBUpq Z871mu1Vx2kZbds2Aqdlv980CcekRiKBVb1GAgjVsw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx9tkQWIJH6qfCTM4r93Fn0JkGxBFjGh9k1TjumYyf0PnXcUjYDBWeUS/klLXmbZuWZeGlEsSD0mVmlPe4JDBw= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7b48:: with SMTP id f8mr50775oto.207.1561492348979; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:52:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190613094326.24093-1-hch@lst.de> <20190613094326.24093-6-hch@lst.de> <20190620191733.GH12083@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190625072317.GC30350@lst.de> <20190625150053.GJ11400@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190625190038.GK11400@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20190625190038.GK11400@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Dan Williams Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:52:18 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/22] mm: export alloc_pages_vma To: Michal Hocko Cc: Christoph Hellwig , =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= , Jason Gunthorpe , Ben Skeggs , Linux MM , nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org, Maling list - DRI developers , linux-nvdimm , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:01 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 25-06-19 11:03:53, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:01 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > On Tue 25-06-19 09:23:17, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:24:48AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > > > > I asked for this simply because it was not exported historically. In > > > > > general I want to establish explicit export-type criteria so the > > > > > community can spend less time debating when to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > > > > > [1]. > > > > > > > > > > The thought in this instance is that it is not historically exported > > > > > to modules and it is safer from a maintenance perspective to start > > > > > with GPL-only for new symbols in case we don't want to maintain that > > > > > interface long-term for out-of-tree modules. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we always reserve the right to remove / change interfaces > > > > > regardless of the export type, but history has shown that external > > > > > pressure to keep an interface stable (contrary to > > > > > Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst) tends to be less for > > > > > GPL-only exports. > > > > > > > > Fully agreed. In the end the decision is with the MM maintainers, > > > > though, although I'd prefer to keep it as in this series. > > > > > > I am sorry but I am not really convinced by the above reasoning wrt. to > > > the allocator API and it has been a subject of many changes over time. I > > > do not remember a single case where we would be bending the allocator > > > API because of external modules and I am pretty sure we will push back > > > heavily if that was the case in the future. > > > > This seems to say that you have no direct experience of dealing with > > changing symbols that that a prominent out-of-tree module needs? GPU > > drivers and the core-mm are on a path to increase their cooperation on > > memory management mechanisms over time, and symbol export changes for > > out-of-tree GPU drivers have been a significant source of friction in > > the past. > > I have an experience e.g. to rework semantic of some gfp flags and that is > something that users usualy get wrong and never heard that an out of > tree code would insist on an old semantic and pushing us to the corner. > > > > So in this particular case I would go with consistency and export the > > > same way we do with other functions. Also we do not want people to > > > reinvent this API and screw that like we have seen in other cases when > > > external modules try reimplement core functionality themselves. > > > > Consistency is a weak argument when the cost to the upstream community > > is negligible. If the same functionality was available via another / > > already exported interface *that* would be an argument to maintain the > > existing export policy. "Consistency" in and of itself is not a > > precedent we can use more widely in default export-type decisions. > > > > Effectively I'm arguing EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL by default with a later > > decision to drop the _GPL. Similar to how we are careful to mark sysfs > > interfaces in Documentation/ABI/ that we are not fully committed to > > maintaining over time, or are otherwise so new that there is not yet a > > good read on whether they can be made permanent. > > Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst That document has failed to preclude symbol export fights in the past and there is a reasonable argument to try not to retract functionality that had been previously exported regardless of that document. > Really. If you want to play with GPL vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL else this is up > to you but I do not see any technical argument to make this particular > interface to the page allocator any different from all others that are > exported to modules. I'm failing to find any practical substance to your argument, but in the end I agree with Chrishoph, it's up to MM maintainers.