From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S970267AbdAFMcR (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 6 Jan 2017 07:32:17 -0500
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:45007 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S970177AbdAFMbW (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 6 Jan 2017 07:31:22 -0500
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 13:31:17 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Anatoly Stepanov <astepanov@cloudlinux.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: support __GFP_REPEAT in kvmalloc_node
Message-ID: <20170106123117.GL5556@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20170102133700.1734-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <20170104181229.GB10183@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <49b2c2de-5d50-1f61-5ddf-e72c52017534@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49b2c2de-5d50-1f61-5ddf-e72c52017534@suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri 06-01-17 13:09:36, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/04/2017 07:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/mm/util.c b/mm/util.c
> > index 8e4ea6cbe379..a2bfb85e60e5 100644
> > --- a/mm/util.c
> > +++ b/mm/util.c
> > @@ -348,8 +348,13 @@ void *kvmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
> >  	 * Make sure that larger requests are not too disruptive - no OOM
> >  	 * killer and no allocation failure warnings as we have a fallback
> >  	 */
> > -	if (size > PAGE_SIZE)
> > -		kmalloc_flags |= __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN;
> > +	if (size > PAGE_SIZE) {
> > +		kmalloc_flags |= __GFP_NOWARN;
> > +
> > +		if (!(kmalloc_flags & __GFP_REPEAT) ||
> > +				(size <= PAGE_SIZE << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER))
> > +			kmalloc_flags |= __GFP_NORETRY;
> 
> I think this would be more understandable for me if it was written in
> the opposite way, i.e. "if we have costly __GFP_REPEAT allocation, don't
> use __GFP_NORETRY",

Dunno, doesn't look much simpler to me
		kmalloc_flags |= __GFP_NORETRY;
		if ((kmalloc_flags & __GFP_REPEAT) &&
				(size > PAGE_SIZE << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)) {
			kmalloc_flags &= ~__GFP_NORETRY;
		}

> but nevermind, seems correct to me wrt current
> handling of both flags in the page allocator. And it serves as a good
> argument to have this wrapper in mm/ as we are hopefully more likely to
> keep it working as intended with future changes, than all the opencoded
> variants.
> 
> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

Thanks!

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs