Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:22f:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 15csp1089767pxk; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 00:12:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxHBoLpBQsbObdNWPpDgZpHvZMe8rf0tGMYAlN/NXx6q4tAZuJacDZxFsQiyz/Vhvvmoex6 X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2749:: with SMTP id a9mr886711ejd.457.1601622765545; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 00:12:45 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1601622765; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=GWS+0emmkXHWKS1gw3ew3ZO55odJLiv5pS146VvYW9L3jGiANokeABAb5kC2PRC2Q8 g18FTSEzKRUxrjjsI3Rgi8Ht16V2ZVje/WeTUoNbY9ORU1Cb6D0moE38OyAsEv7AWL2p mzMDMLkz6pQD+BwKOm91xgQ7/lNL+KDZjeSvm2xQpzIEiWDG2jD3qg7hDMTHpCkTlL8X 6NhTKBhzVvjmcZ4D5LAUuWnPwvPmavXYm0SdQ5AF4sWmWEUZLwSlc54zY6yOCQe8w6w5 7FVYeO3Ui1NrC0g4lICedv71FNnCmyDxRVkn3MvGcVUlGkorj3OssjQG7u0hSwczBSP5 xVKw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :dkim-signature; bh=CIUDRMv6oCpat1m7gSDcNYYd2XmvpMkcwYlQlsCJ1pI=; b=JGv8MHWBgJwhXXrCYN311GlbfTP9Ob6Mt5susHJr9fu2Xp5Kd73hMyZWAbwK+nMWb/ thSYFwRiPC1IppBefc1e6bNyR1fbM7xQli2fMXSt3rcvc9cMqCl3ndJBWnLdTP5ypDg0 9ynSppp0wo3TFafcmTJUCb2IFLw8O5GnGe0vTG8pvN9bJCPEQiMUw59+joDlL42Jx4lK aMyGvqh9+DOhYUt2z7z4AE9eONx4rztbOAbYw17suksIYuEbzmOfp6yHgIlf8soklbw6 JKAxjQpS9lozWleGbfeGl64P6fWDkuaxwfeLypUshDP83WnlCLCJKTpR7/Sc9bpYoS14 azBw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=SqC3XLQc; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=suse.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m6si437292edb.297.2020.10.02.00.12.22; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 00:12:45 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=SqC3XLQc; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=suse.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726230AbgJBHL0 (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 2 Oct 2020 03:11:26 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:51870 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725948AbgJBHLZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2020 03:11:25 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1601622684; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=CIUDRMv6oCpat1m7gSDcNYYd2XmvpMkcwYlQlsCJ1pI=; b=SqC3XLQcMGZ9Sb9YZP0PRZTA34Gr2lF5MTEwILmKEZDIxkZQV8o3nNG6/OxH0z6kptk4wf w5jE2PNxvkB5nnVNvyRYsvDFRIVWTgZw/+3VPuBLeyd0znhxKLWFpXaWZGCRuY+AD7FDu+ mi88kOYCZ+LaVtK3zIR0tAuzyhgb0h4= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15038B317; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 07:11:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 09:11:23 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Uladzislau Rezki Cc: Vlastimil Babka , LKML , RCU , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , "Paul E . McKenney" , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , "Theodore Y . Ts'o" , Joel Fernandes , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Oleksiy Avramchenko , Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 2/4] mm: Add __rcu_alloc_page_lockless() func. Message-ID: <20201002071123.GB20872@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200918194817.48921-1-urezki@gmail.com> <20200918194817.48921-3-urezki@gmail.com> <38f42ca1-ffcd-04a6-bf11-618deffa897a@suse.cz> <20200929220742.GB8768@pc636> <795d6aea-1846-6e08-ac1b-dbff82dd7133@suse.cz> <20201001192626.GA29606@pc636> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201001192626.GA29606@pc636> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 01-10-20 21:26:26, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > No, I meant going back to idea of new gfp flag, but adjust the implementation in > > the allocator (different from what you posted in previous version) so that it > > only looks at the flag after it tries to allocate from pcplist and finds out > > it's empty. So, no inventing of new page allocator entry points or checks such > > as the one you wrote above, but adding the new gfp flag in a way that it doesn't > > affect existing fast paths. > > > OK. Now i see. Please have a look below at the patch, so we fully understand > each other. If that is something that is close to your view or not: > > > t a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h > index c603237e006c..7e613560a502 100644 > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h > @@ -39,8 +39,9 @@ struct vm_area_struct; > #define ___GFP_HARDWALL 0x100000u > #define ___GFP_THISNODE 0x200000u > #define ___GFP_ACCOUNT 0x400000u > +#define ___GFP_NO_LOCKS 0x800000u Even if a new gfp flag gains a sufficient traction and support I am _strongly_ opposed against consuming another flag for that. Bit space is limited. Besides that we certainly do not want to allow craziness like __GFP_NO_LOCK | __GFP_RECLAIM (and similar), do we? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs