Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1539007
| From | Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers |
| Date | 2016-12-09 03:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sMiNj-5Dx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sM4hj-51v-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <sMitY-5hA-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 12:44:17PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 11:33:00AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> >
> > Using kmalloc with the vmalloc fallback for larger allocations is a
> > common pattern in the kernel code. Yet we do not have any common helper
> > for that and so users have invented their own helpers. Some of them are
> > really creative when doing so. Let's just add kv[mz]alloc and make sure
> > it is implemented properly. This implementation makes sure to not make
> > a large memory pressure for > PAGE_SZE requests (__GFP_NORETRY) and also
> > to not warn about allocation failures. This also rules out the OOM
> > killer as the vmalloc is a more approapriate fallback than a disruptive
> > user visible action.
> >
> > This patch also changes some existing users and removes helpers which
> > are specific for them. In some cases this is not possible (e.g.
> > ext4_kvmalloc, libcfs_kvzalloc, __aa_kvmalloc) because those seems to be
> > broken and require GFP_NO{FS,IO} context which is not vmalloc compatible
> > in general (note that the page table allocation is GFP_KERNEL). Those
> > need to be fixed separately.
>
> See fs/xfs/kmem.c::kmem_zalloc_large(), which is XFS's version of
> kvmalloc() that is GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO safe. Any generic API for this
> functionality will have to play these memalloc_noio_save/
> memalloc_noio_restore games to ensure they are GFP_NOFS safe....
Easier to handle those in vmalloc() itself. The problem I have with these
helpers is that different places have different cutoff thresholds for
switch from kmalloc to vmalloc; has anyone done an analysis of those?
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC PATCH] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-08 11:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> - 2016-12-08 14:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-08 15:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-12-09 02:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 03:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-09 07:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 07:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-09 08:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-09 07:20 +0100
csiph-web