Messages in this thread | | | From | Michal Hocko <> | Subject | [PATCH 0/19] get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPORT | Date | Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:07:53 +0200 |
| |
Hi, this is the second version of the patchset previously sent [1]
while working on something unrelated I've checked the current usage of __GFP_REPEAT in the tree. It seems that a majority of the usage is and always has been bogus because __GFP_REPEAT has always been about costly high order allocations while we are using it for order-0 or very small orders very often. It seems that a big pile of them is just a copy&paste when a code has been adopted from one arch to another.
I think it makes some sense to get rid of them because they are just making the semantic more unclear. Please note that GFP_REPEAT is documented as * __GFP_REPEAT: Try hard to allocate the memory, but the allocation attempt * _might_ fail. This depends upon the particular VM implementation. while !costly requests have basically nofail semantic. So one could reasonably expect that order-0 request with __GFP_REPEAT will not loop for ever. This is not implemented right now though.
I would like to move on with __GFP_REPEAT and define a better semantic for it. One thought was to rename it to __GFP_BEST_EFFORT which would behave consistently for all orders and guarantee that the allocation would try as long as it seem feasible or fail eventually. !costly request would then finally get a request context which neiter fails too early (GFP_NORETRY) nor endlessly loops in the allocator for ever (default behavior). Costly high order requests would keep the current semantic.
$ git grep __GFP_REPEAT next/master | wc -l 111 $ git grep __GFP_REPEAT | wc -l 35
So we are down to the third after this patch series. The remaining places really seem to be relying on __GFP_REPEAT due to large allocation requests. This still needs some double checking which I will do later after all the simple ones are sorted out.
I am touching a lot of arch specific code here and I hope I got it right but as a matter of fact I even didn't compile test for some archs as I do not have cross compiler for them. Patches should be quite trivial to review for stupid compile mistakes though. The tricky parts are usually hidden by macro definitions and thats where I would appreciate help from arch maintainers.
I am also interested whether this makes sense in general.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1446740160-29094-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org
| |