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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1719774

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

From Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag
Date 2017-08-25 08:40 +0200
Message-ID <uigrD-xp-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <u89B8-1Pt-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <ui2RI-kG-41@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Wed 23-08-17 19:57:09, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 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.

I do not think we want a highlevel GFP_TEMPORARY without any meaning.
This just supports spreading the flag usage without a clear semantic
and it will lead to even bigger mess. Once we can actually define what
the flag means we can also add its users based on that new semantic.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | 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
        Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-08-25 23:40 +0200
          Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com> - 2017-08-26 06:20 +0200
            Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-08-28 14:40 +0200
              Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-08-31 11:10 +0200
                Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> - 2017-08-31 11:30 +0200
          Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-08-28 14:40 +0200
            Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-08-31 11:20 +0200

csiph-web