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: <20201211202140.396852-1-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
 <20201211202140.396852-4-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> <20201214140912.GE32193@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CA+CK2bA9u_ZUosha0JvW6ezs-h95UBHZztoFojMyFbC791ximw@mail.gmail.com> <20201215082524.GK32193@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20201215082524.GK32193@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 12:35:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+CK2bD2en+N2BAGNYD+8DvLqd-MA0pkCkgFTyX3Ga1QTvThyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] mm: apply per-task gfp constraints in fast path
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, mike.kravetz@oracle.com,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 3:25 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue 15-12-20 00:20:39, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > > Ack to this.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > >
> > > But I do not really understand this. All allocation contexts should have
> > > a proper gfp mask so why do we have to call current_gfp_context here?
> > > In fact moving the current_gfp_context in the allocator path should have
> > > made all this games unnecessary. Memcg reclaim path might need some
> > > careful check because gfp mask is used more creative there but the
> > > general reclaim paths should be ok.
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > >
> > > Again, why do we need this when the gfp_mask
> > > >       };
> > > >
> > --
> >
> > Hi Michal,
> >
> > Beside from __alloc_pages_nodemask(), the current_gfp_context() is
> > called from the following six functions:
> >
> > try_to_free_pages()
> > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages()
> > __node_reclaim()
> > __need_fs_reclaim()
> > alloc_contig_range()
> > pcpu_alloc()
> >
> > As I understand, the idea is that because the allocator now honors
> > gfp_context values for all paths, the call can be removed from some of
> > the above functions. I think you are correct. But, at least from a
> > quick glance, this is not obvious, and is not the case for all of the
> > above functions.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > alloc_contig_range()
> >   __alloc_contig_migrate_range
> >    isolate_migratepages_range
> >      isolate_migratepages_block
> >         /*
> >          * Only allow to migrate anonymous pages in GFP_NOFS context
> >          * because those do not depend on fs locks.
> >          */
> >        if (!(cc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && page_mapping(page))
> >           goto isolate_fail;
> >
> > If we remove current_gfp_context() from alloc_contig_range(), the
> > cc->gfp_mask will not be updated with proper __GFP_FS flag.
>
> I do not think I was proposing to drop current_gfp_context from
> alloc_contig_range. ACR needs some work to be properly scoped gfp mask
> aware. This should be addressed but I do not think think the code
> works properly now so I wouldn't lose sleep over it in this series. At
> least __alloc_contig_migrate_range should follow the gfp mask given to
> alloc_contig_range.
>
> > I have studied some other paths, and they are also convoluted.
> > Therefore, I am worried about performing this optimization in this
> > series.
>
> Dropping current_gfp_context from the reclaim context should be done in
> a separate patch. I didn't mean to push for this here. All I meant was
> to simply not touch gfp/zone_idx in the reclaim path. The changelog
> should call out that the page allocator always provides proper gfp mask.

I see what you mean. I will remove reclaim changes, and will add a
note to changelog.

Thank you,
Pasha

>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs