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: <20211013194338.1804247-1-shakeelb@google.com> <YWfZNF7T7Fm69sik@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <YWfZNF7T7Fm69sik@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 08:01:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod4Br9iwq-qfdwj6dzgW2g1vEr2YL4=w_mQjOeWWDQzFjw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: page_alloc: skip bulk allocator for __GFP_ACCOUNT
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 12:16 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed 13-10-21 12:43:38, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 668edb16446a..b3acad4615d3 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -5215,6 +5215,10 @@ unsigned long __alloc_pages_bulk(gfp_t gfp, int preferred_nid,
> >       unsigned int alloc_flags = ALLOC_WMARK_LOW;
> >       int nr_populated = 0, nr_account = 0;
> >
> > +     /* Bulk allocator does not support memcg accounting. */
> > +     if (unlikely(gfp & __GFP_ACCOUNT))
> > +             goto out;
>
> Did you mean goto failed here? This would break some which do not
> have any fallback. E.g. xfs_buf_alloc_pages but likely more.
>
> Sorry I could have been more specific when talking about bypassing the
> bulk allocator. It is quite confusing because the bulk allocator
> interface consists of the bulk allocator and the fallback to the normal
> page allocator.
>

I did consider 'goto failed' here but for that I have to move
__GFP_ACCOUNT check after the "Already populated array" check in the
function. Basically what's the point of doing other operations
(incrementing nr_populated) if we are gonna skip bulk anyways.

Regarding xfs_buf_alloc_pages(), it is not using __GFP_ACCOUNT and
vmalloc() is the only __GFP_ACCOUNT user at this point. So, not an
issue for now but I suppose it is better to be future-proof and do the
'goto failed'.

Let me know what you think.