Received: by 10.192.165.148 with SMTP id m20csp4663460imm; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 06:33:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/dr+7dMCf1pjX7EYarMb8Ajf/Wus9FxTQDP22+XZ2Ie5MXyMP7rDqnfP7oH6Z+wpNcvEMt X-Received: by 10.99.105.195 with SMTP id e186mr10614845pgc.353.1524576820485; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 06:33:40 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1524576820; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=I7J2H0uATRb+gwRNnJN3IuE0j6VQw6g0Jvd1zh00JFcOzfmkxO+sNIqsmD5/eEz48G m6NW/1XHf7FfKvvAGM91B3BCVCY8lQD3yLHdXx0Hsp8thdrMBTTO/ZY+zSZvv7mDpw9k bsbUFEID0mk6JbeFUMvOFc74P5yyIsDC3gvQoW5nLSjb5IMqG3AWnTGcL/UqxRn9Vex6 5xx6AehGeal3Y9r1+17o160wLd5L6dHTmRzyXl4GGUYTbMPvCm4E7AC+qwNctG2Ayy11 q1vi0CpLREe63B8jRxgxsl9CnQyD1WHEvHAN8iVcUAxZyrfhORw/csIFVUPRQlgIO/Jx kjag== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=8+MJU22y1QyJqxLo6NGf+lPBeupUUkhMF36NrCZukHQ=; b=Wtvhzr9g92lLGcRPx8XJ0aZP8n0JhHxKuq9QlZrXv50USkwAPRwqOmowVQRTQpqtmU VaNPOCXPwgL/0GZ5MtxMA3I8KVA0kn9uQ312Mn68Dc9v/UsHHAfEsJzX6cUn5YNhuN24 OZl0lfxSKLVUuXiWlhkYTmCtTtFddSqf8cPgJ1sVugF/waNPfbDYxhs8QnWFxD+tqxFl vtL6mgN/SNP1P6Rzr4IIi5Q3GFYcx6CF9Oom82S8opytqDtzZGVihbP2T7Eju9SlO2PS 2p+qV/7F05LOu545BEiEX5v5PGdkh8TofndQyISWNC0VV/Ym2eIeYE7VHNc78JcJhsjL ukRg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h2si13136231pfb.111.2018.04.24.06.33.24; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 06:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934384AbeDXNb7 (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:31:59 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:51730 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933927AbeDXNby (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:31:54 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92FF5AC65; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:31:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 07:31:46 -0600 From: Michal Hocko To: Mikulas Patocka Cc: Matthew Wilcox , David Miller , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, edumazet@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mst@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, Vlastimil Babka Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvmalloc: always use vmalloc if CONFIG_DEBUG_VM Message-ID: <20180424133146.GG17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180420130852.GC16083@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180420210200.GH10788@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180421144757.GC14610@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180423151545.GU17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 23-04-18 20:25:15, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 23-04-18 10:06:08, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > > > > > He didn't want to fix vmalloc(GFP_NOIO) > > > > > > > > I don't remember that conversation, so I don't know whether I agree with > > > > his reasoning or not. But we are supposed to be moving away from GFP_NOIO > > > > towards marking regions with memalloc_noio_save() / restore. If you do > > > > that, you won't need vmalloc(GFP_NOIO). > > > > > > He said the same thing a year ago. And there was small progress. 6 out of > > > 27 __vmalloc calls were converted to memalloc_noio_save in a year - 5 in > > > infiniband and 1 in btrfs. (the whole discussion is here > > > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1706.3/04681.html ) > > > > Well this is not that easy. It requires a cooperation from maintainers. > > I can only do as much. I've posted patches in the past and actively > > bringing up this topic at LSFMM last two years... > > You're right - but you have chosen the uneasy path. Yes. > Fixing __vmalloc code > is easy and it doesn't require cooperation with maintainers. But it is a hack against the intention of the scope api. It also alows maintainers to not care about their broken code. > > > He refuses 15-line patch to fix GFP_NOIO bug because he believes that in 4 > > > years, the kernel will be refactored and GFP_NOIO will be eliminated. Why > > > does he have veto over this part of the code? I'd much rather argue with > > > people who have constructive comments about fixing bugs than with him. > > > > I didn't NACK the patch AFAIR. I've said it is not a good idea longterm. > > I would be much more willing to change my mind if you would back your > > patch by a real bug report. Hacks are acceptable when we have a real > > issue in hands. But if we want to fix potential issue then better make > > it properly. > > Developers should fix bugs in advance, not to wait until a crash hapens, > is analyzed and reported. I agree. But are those existing users broken in the first place? I have seen so many GFP_NOFS abuses that I would dare to guess that most of those vmalloc NOFS abusers can be simply turned into GFP_KERNEL. Maybe that is the reason we haven't heard any complains in years. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs