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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS 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 ECF8CC43387
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:36:33 +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 72BB720675
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:36:33 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 72BB720675
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com
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 43fpC31Qx3zDqf9
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:36:31 +1100 (AEDT)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=arm.com
 (client-ip=217.140.101.70; helo=foss.arm.com;
 envelope-from=anshuman.khandual@arm.com; receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com
Received: from foss.arm.com (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70])
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43fp0c2NJmzDqSW
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:27:26 +1100 (AEDT)
Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249])
 by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1CB580D;
 Wed, 16 Jan 2019 05:27:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.162.42.129] (p8cg001049571a15.blr.arm.com [10.162.42.129])
 by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id
 99B543F70D; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 05:27:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mm: Introduce GFP_PGTABLE
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
References: <1547619692-7946-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
 <20190116065703.GE24149@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190116123018.GF6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20190116124431.GK24149@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Message-ID: <d074a7aa-9582-b95a-dce0-d95ac3d3c949@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:57:13 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190116124431.GK24149@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
 linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
 linux@armlinux.org.uk, mingo@redhat.com, vbabka@suse.cz, rientjes@google.com,
 palmer@sifive.com, greentime@andestech.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,
 christoffer.dall@arm.com, 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 01/16/2019 06:14 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 16-01-19 04:30:18, 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.
> 
> Yes, I believe the only reason this is x86 only is that each arch would
> have to be tweaked separately. So a cleanup in _that_ regard would be
> helpful. There is no real reason to have ptes accounted only for x86.
> There might be some exceptions but well, our asm-generic allows to opt
> in for generic implementation or override it with a special one. The
> later should be an exception rather than the rule.

Fair enough. So we seem to have agreement over __GFP_ACCOUNT for user page
tables but not for the kernel. But should we accommodate __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL
or drop them altogether (including multi order allocation requests) ?