From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=iwfG=PW=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 4EE30C43387
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 04:02:56 +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 CBE8D20657
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 04:02:55 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CBE8D20657
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 43dKZ60yYhzDqJB
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 15:02:54 +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 43dKX25nKgzDqSG
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 15:01:06 +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 7078780D;
 Sun, 13 Jan 2019 20:01:04 -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
 2C24C3F5BD; Sun, 13 Jan 2019 20:00:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Introduce GFP_PGTABLE
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
References: <1547288798-10243-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
 <20190113173555.GC1578@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Message-ID: <f9f333a5-5533-996a-dc8e-1ff1096c1d19@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:30:55 +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: <20190113173555.GC1578@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, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
 linux@armlinux.org.uk, mingo@redhat.com, vbabka@suse.cz, rientjes@google.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 01/13/2019 11:05 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 12-01-19 15:56:38, 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.
> 
> I agree that some unification is due but GFP_PGTABLE is not something to
> expose in generic gfp.h IMHO. It just risks an abuse. I would be looking

Why would you think that it risks an abuse ? It does not create new semantics
of allocation in the buddy. Its just uses existing GFP_KERNEL allocation which
is then getting zeroed out. The risks (if any) is exactly same as GFP_KERNEL.

> at providing asm-generic implementation and reuse it to remove the code

Does that mean GFP_PGTABLE can be created but not in gfp.h but in some other
memory related header file ?

> duplication. But I haven't tried that to know that it will work out due
> to small/subtle differences between arches.

IIUC from the allocation perspective GFP_ACCOUNT is the only thing which gets
added with GFP_PGTABLE for user page table for memcg accounting purpose. There
does not seem to be any other differences unless I am missing something.