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> <20200516.163927.1112911965183377217.davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200516.163927.1112911965183377217.davem@davemloft.net>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Sat, 16 May 2020 16:59:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod4cqCNHVLVMsoHKtQxWdY3YUqJBuqwFwE8MLeVh-jbdUw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/packet: simply allocations in alloc_one_pg_vec_page
To:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        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 4:39 PM David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>
> From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
> Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 15:35:46 -0700
>
> > 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.
>
> Also not true.
>
> Page table allocation strategies and limits vary by architecture, they
> may even need virtual mappings themselves.  So they can fail in situations
> where a non-zero GFP_KERNEL page allocator allocation would succeed.

Thanks for the explanation. Do you think calling vzalloc only for
non-zero order here has any value?