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;
Date:   Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:07:29 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 2/4] mm: Add __rcu_alloc_page_lockless() func.
Message-ID: <20201002090729.GU2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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>
 <20201002071123.GB20872@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20201002085014.GC3227@techsingularity.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201002085014.GC3227@techsingularity.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 09:50:14AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 09:11:23AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:

> > > +#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. 
> 
> That is definitely true. I'm not happy with the GFP flag at all, the
> comment is at best a damage limiting move. It still would be better for
> a memory pool to be reserved and sized for critical allocations.

This is one of the reasons I did a separate allocation function. No GFP
flag to leak into general usage.

> > Besides that we certainly do not want to allow craziness like
> > __GFP_NO_LOCK | __GFP_RECLAIM (and similar), do we?
> 
> That would deserve to be taken to a dumpster and set on fire. The flag
> combination could be checked in the allocator but the allocator path fast
> paths are bad enough already.

Isn't that what we have CONFIG_DEBUG_VM for?