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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 03C48C10F26 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 12:55:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEFF20675 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 12:55:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1585745708; bh=2Y5RMQ7EdgtTBBFmKV3VBrNrcnYUqMo9IlqHlbr/iF8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=e5bly7wzUtXBPYNdCsnkEIE/h3JrdSWcN+7wLm3WyJBLyqWmkQ4HTxTMCii5WyEU8 K+tc42og364LK3aCOn6/0rXs8+VPKafFrf3UKpIY+J64ZoIHu/MniMZOKlZnm5SfvT nQptd8t7M7Nvl00vDa5/XBa4d4E4IFsL0Zja7dhw= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732564AbgDAMzI (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2020 08:55:08 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f65.google.com ([209.85.128.65]:51866 "EHLO mail-wm1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732289AbgDAMzH (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2020 08:55:07 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f65.google.com with SMTP id z7so3785368wmk.1; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 05:55:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=NLb9KnHMR+orgTZZ6eLIjfcSjKQyqXclo2S3Zf+Re28=; b=Gbrl9cHeIFb+RIMbLkz39emtWPtkoJEkDAcYnVTSfBcIxUr08mcGWtGc23mVWH8kdC eCnfczYBW4BO+P1n0qNdN5dJwn7ggTdnhZ3TrPk0Xew43Tn33Ywd2NwJN2sU+uRCjIk3 1QLo5sOukVtmawjU8PGBacbOeOrfHEGU8aKGKM/ZbOkD2nmhBDLQoiFkb/8EgBosoPKX fxjATK4hj8FH1pYkyvIPQOPP8KY7csHEq6VorWG0SMyaSap5sMR+cym1hwLRBxGIgZqY F11pAJoQ6v+vywnrmjIYz9pZhF1P/WKtx0muOo9we/yfR3CSsET4VKhMiPuuRpYy8Mby YBTg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZnTCwq9TTBIoWJxCpSAfikyTSXNg8C5+macLxTvijYOFFWPAF8 /DyWhPjy4FikFap4SvpQdcVpsbJI X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKvALPmhHzMyvuDtmAnvifIfOFdJHLl2AAXGKB3AMV3k6kCs1F0Bqe42eUcrVpmcYwcaUU82Q== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cd0c:: with SMTP id f12mr4377106wmj.4.1585745705697; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 05:55:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-37-188-180-223.eurotel.cz. [37.188.180.223]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t11sm2760314wru.69.2020.04.01.05.55.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 01 Apr 2020 05:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 14:55:03 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Uladzislau Rezki Cc: Joel Fernandes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, peterz@infradead.org, neilb@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz, mgorman@suse.de, Andrew Morton , Josh Triplett , Lai Jiangshan , Mathieu Desnoyers , "Paul E. McKenney" , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rcu/tree: Use GFP_MEMALLOC for alloc memory to free memory pattern Message-ID: <20200401125503.GJ22681@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200331131628.153118-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> <20200331145806.GB236678@google.com> <20200331153450.GM30449@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200331161215.GA27676@pc636> <20200401070958.GB22681@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200401123230.GB32593@pc636> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200401123230.GB32593@pc636> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 01-04-20 14:32:30, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:09:58AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 31-03-20 18:12:15, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > > > > __GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_HIGH is the way to get an additional access to > > > > memory reserves regarless of the sleeping status. > > > > > > > Michal, just one question here regarding proposed flags. Can we also > > > tight it with __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL flag? Means it also can repeat a few > > > times in order to increase the chance of being success. > > > > yes, __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL is perfectly valid with __GFP_ATOMIC. Please > > note that __GFP_ATOMIC, despite its name, doesn't imply an atomic > > allocation which cannot sleep. Quite confusing, I know. A much better > > name would be __GFP_RESERVES or something like that. > > > OK. Then we can use GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL to try in more harder > way. Please note the difference between __GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_ATOMIC. The later is a highlevel flag to use for atomic contexts. The former is an explicit way to give an access to memory reserves. I am not familiar with your code but if you have an existing gfp context coming from the caller then just do (gfp | __GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_HIGH | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL). If you do not have any gfp then decide based on whether the current context is allowed to sleep gfp = GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_HIGH | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL; if (!sleepable) gfp &= ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM; -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs