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: <20211018114712.9802-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20211018114712.9802-3-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <20211019110649.GA1933@pc638.lan> <YW6xZ7vi/7NVzRH5@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20211019194658.GA1787@pc638.lan> <YW/SYl/ZKp7W60mg@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CA+KHdyUopXQVTp2=X-7DYYFNiuTrh25opiUOd1CXED1UXY2Fhg@mail.gmail.com> <YXAiZdvk8CGvZCIM@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <YXAiZdvk8CGvZCIM@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:29:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+KHdyUyObf2m51uFpVd_tVCmQyn_mjMO0hYP+L0AmRs0PWKow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:06 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed 20-10-21 15:54:23, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > I think adding kind of schedule() will not make things worse and in corner
> > > > cases could prevent a power drain by CPU. It is important for mobile devices.
> > >
> > > I suspect you mean schedule_timeout here? Or cond_resched? I went with a
> > > later for now, I do not have a good idea for how to long to sleep here.
> > > I am more than happy to change to to a sleep though.
> > >
> > cond_resched() reschedules only if TIF_NEED_RESCHED is raised what is not good
> > here. Because in our case we know that we definitely would like to
> > take a breath. Therefore
> > invoking the schedule() is more suitable here. It will give a CPU time
> > to another waiting
> > process(if exists) in any case putting the "current" one to the tail.
>
> Yes, but there is no explicit event to wait for currently.
>
> > As for adding a delay. I am not sure about for how long to delay or i
> > would say i do not
> > see a good explanation why for example we delay for 10 milliseconds or so.
>
> As I've said I am OK with either of the two. Do you or anybody have any
> preference? Without any explicit event to wake up for neither of the two
> is more than just an optimistic retry.
>
From power perspective it is better to have a delay, so i tend to say
that delay is better.

-- 
Uladzislau Rezki