Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <4f1096f0-cb6e-7cd2-5f41-c5e4b53fa407@suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2023 10:41:52 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: Reduce memory consumption in extreme scenarios
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "chenjun (AM)" <chenjun102@huawei.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "cl@linux.com" <cl@linux.com>,
        "penberg@kernel.org" <penberg@kernel.org>,
        "rientjes@google.com" <rientjes@google.com>,
        "iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com" <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
        "xuqiang (M)" <xuqiang36@huawei.com>,
        "Wangkefeng (OS Kernel Lab)" <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
References: <20230314123403.100158-1-chenjun102@huawei.com>
 <0cad1ff3-8339-a3eb-fc36-c8bda1392451@suse.cz>
 <344c7521d72e4107b451c19b329e9864@huawei.com>
 <8c700468-245d-72e9-99e7-b99d4547e6d8@suse.cz>
 <aeb2bd3990004b9eb4f151aa833ddcf2@huawei.com>
 <015855b3-ced3-8d84-e21d-cc6ce112b556@suse.cz> <ZBgjZn7WOqO5ruws@kernel.org>
 <c3a2280eff5c419ea14b6cad34474e08@huawei.com>
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <c3a2280eff5c419ea14b6cad34474e08@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/21/23 10:30, chenjun (AM) wrote:
> 在 2023/3/20 17:12, Mike Rapoport 写道:
>>>>
>>>> If we ignore __GFP_ZERO passed by kzalloc， kzalloc will not work.
>>>> Could we just unmask __GFP_RECLAIMABLE | __GFP_RECLAIM?
>>>>
>>>> pc.flags &= ~(__GFP_RECLAIMABLE | __GFP_RECLAIM)
>>>> pc.flags |= __GFP_THISNODE
>>>
>>> __GFP_RECLAIMABLE would be wrong, but also ignored as new_slab() does:
>>> 	flags & (GFP_RECLAIM_MASK | GFP_CONSTRAINT_MASK)
>>>
>>> which would filter out __GFP_ZERO as well. That's not a problem as kzalloc()
>>> will zero out the individual allocated objects, so it doesn't matter if we
>>> don't zero out the whole slab page.
>>>
>>> But I wonder, if we're not past due time for a helper e.g.
>>> gfp_opportunistic(flags) that would turn any allocation flags to a
>>> GFP_NOWAIT while keeping the rest of relevant flags intact, and thus there
>>> would be one canonical way to do it - I'm sure there's a number of places
>>> with their own variants now?
>>> With such helper we'd just add __GFP_THISNODE to the result here as that's
>>> specific to this particular opportunistic allocation.
>> 
>> I like the idea, but maybe gfp_no_reclaim() would be clearer?
>> 
> 
> #define gfp_no_reclaim(gfpflag) (gfpflag & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM)

I hoped for more feedback on the idea, but it's probably best proposed
outside of this slub-specific thread, so we could go for an open-coded
solution in slub for now.

Also just masking out __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM wouldn't be sufficient in any
case for the general solution/

> And here,
> 
> pc.flags = gfp_no_reclaim(gfpflags) | __GFP_THISNODE.

I'd still suggest as earlier:

pc.flags = GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN |__GFP_THISNODE;

> Do I get it right？