Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1719371

Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag

Show all headers | View raw

Hi!

> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> 
> GFP_TEMPORARY has been introduced by e12ba74d8ff3 ("Group short-lived
> and reclaimable kernel allocations") along with __GFP_RECLAIMABLE. It's
> primary motivation was to allow users to tell that an allocation is
> short lived and so the allocator can try to place such allocations close
> together and prevent long term fragmentation. As much as this sounds
> like a reasonable semantic it becomes much less clear when to use the
> highlevel GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag. How long is temporary? Can
> the context holding that memory sleep? Can it take locks? It seems
> there is no good answer for those questions.
> 
> The current implementation of GFP_TEMPORARY is basically
> GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_RECLAIMABLE which in itself is tricky because
> basically none of the existing caller provide a way to reclaim the
> allocated memory. So this is rather misleading and hard to evaluate for
> any benefits.
> 
> I have checked some random users and none of them has added the flag
> with a specific justification. I suspect most of them just copied from
> other existing users and others just thought it might be a good idea
> to use without any measuring. This suggests that GFP_TEMPORARY just
> motivates for cargo cult usage without any reasoning.
> 
> I believe that our gfp flags are quite complex already and especially
> those with highlevel semantic should be clearly defined to prevent from
> confusion and abuse. Therefore I propose dropping GFP_TEMPORARY and
> replace all existing users to simply use GFP_KERNEL. Please note that
> SLAB users with shrinkers will still get __GFP_RECLAIMABLE heuristic
> and so they will be placed properly for memory fragmentation prevention.
> 
> I can see reasons we might want some gfp flag to reflect shorterm
> allocations but I propose starting from a clear semantic definition and
> only then add users with proper justification.

Dunno. < 1msec probably is temporary, 1 hour probably is not. If it causes
problems, can you just #define GFP_TEMPORARY GFP_KERNEL ? Treewide replace,
and then starting again goes not look attractive to me.

									Pavel

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-08-24 18:10 +0200
  Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-08-25 08:40 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-08-25 09:30 +0200
      Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-08-25 10:10 +0200

csiph-web