From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=yyDT=PY=lists.ozlabs.org=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,
	USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable 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 2B11DC43387
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:41:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A298320675
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:41:50 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A298320675
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3])
	by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43fpK84RqBzDqdT
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:41:48 +1100 (AEDT)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 spf=softfail (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org
 (client-ip=195.135.220.15; helo=mx1.suse.de; envelope-from=mhocko@kernel.org;
 receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org
Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43fp790qVtzDqdm
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:33:09 +1100 (AEDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de
Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254])
 by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7292FAF8A;
 Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:33:05 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:33:02 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mm: Introduce GFP_PGTABLE
Message-ID: <20190116133302.GN24149@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1547619692-7946-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
 <20190116065703.GE24149@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190116123018.GF6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <07d6a264-dccd-78ab-e8a9-2410bbef7b97@arm.com>
 <20190116131827.GH6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190116131827.GH6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
 catalin.marinas@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
 christoffer.dall@arm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
 kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, greentime@andestech.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk,
 mingo@redhat.com, vbabka@suse.cz, rientjes@google.com, palmer@sifive.com,
 Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
 rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com, shakeelb@google.com, kirill@shutemov.name,
 tglx@linutronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
 ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, robin.murphy@arm.com, steve.capper@arm.com,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com,
 akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
 <linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>

On Wed 16-01-19 05:18:27, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 06:42:22PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > On 01/16/2019 06:00 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:57:03AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >> On Wed 16-01-19 11:51:32, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > >>> All architectures have been defining their own PGALLOC_GFP as (GFP_KERNEL |
> > >>> __GFP_ZERO) and using it for allocating page table pages. This causes some
> > >>> code duplication which can be easily avoided. GFP_KERNEL allocated and
> > >>> cleared out pages (__GFP_ZERO) are required for page tables on any given
> > >>> architecture. This creates a new generic GFP flag flag which can be used
> > >>> for any page table page allocation. Does not cause any functional change.
> > >>>
> > >>> GFP_PGTABLE is being added into include/asm-generic/pgtable.h which is the
> > >>> generic page tabe header just to prevent it's potential misuse as a general
> > >>> allocation flag if included in include/linux/gfp.h.
> > >>
> > >> I haven't reviewed the patch yet but I am wondering whether this is
> > >> really worth it without going all the way down to unify the common code
> > >> and remove much more code duplication. Or is this not possible for some
> > >> reason?
> > > 
> > > Exactly what I suggested doing in response to v1.
> > > 
> > > Also, the approach taken here is crazy.  x86 has a feature that no other
> > > architecture has bothered to implement yet -- accounting page tables
> > > to the process.  Yet instead of spreading that goodness to all other
> > > architectures, Anshuman has gone to more effort to avoid doing that.
> > 
> > The basic objective for this patch is to create a common minimum allocation
> > flag that can be used by architectures but that still allows archs to add
> > on additional constraints if they see fit. This patch does not intend to
> > change functionality for any arch.
> 
> I disagree with your objective.  Making more code common is a great idea,
> but this patch is too unambitious.  We should be heading towards one or
> two page table allocation functions instead of having every architecture do
> its own thing.
> 
> So start there.  Move the x86 function into common code and convert one
> other architecture to use it too.

Agreed!

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs