Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200516021736.226222-1-shakeelb@google.com> <20200516.134018.1760282800329273820.davem@davemloft.net>
 <CALvZod7euq10j6k9Z_dej4BvGXDjqbND05oM-u6tQrLjosX31A@mail.gmail.com> <CANn89iJ9BYNi__DhLp_QE5JU7=RxkzknOSxD+P+qiHg2=Ho6Ow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iJ9BYNi__DhLp_QE5JU7=RxkzknOSxD+P+qiHg2=Ho6Ow@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Sat, 16 May 2020 16:52:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod6b2tHDGGzkspxT1r7c4So95BpUagPcwgUVf+++5eX5Hw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/packet: simply allocations in alloc_one_pg_vec_page
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 3:45 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 3:35 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 1:40 PM David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
> > > Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 19:17:36 -0700
> > >
> > > > and thus there is no need to have any fallback after vzalloc.
> > >
> > > This statement is false.
> > >
> > > The virtual mapping allocation or the page table allocations can fail.
> > >
> > > A fallback is therefore indeed necessary.
> >
> > I am assuming that you at least agree that vzalloc should only be
> > called for non-zero order allocations. So, my argument is if non-zero
> > order vzalloc has failed (allocations internal to vzalloc, including
> > virtual mapping allocation and page table allocations, are order 0 and
> > use GFP_KERNEL i.e. triggering reclaim and oom-killer) then the next
> > non-zero order page allocation has very low chance of succeeding.
>
>
> 32bit kernels might have exhausted their vmalloc space, yet they can
> still allocate order-0 pages.

Oh ok it makes sense.