Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-142635-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:17:52 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" <cl@linux.com>,
	Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com>, penberg@kernel.org,
	rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev,
	42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: Clear __GFP_COMP flag when allocating 0 order page
Message-ID: <ZhkmcNwOKktO3pxT@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20240411091832.608280-1-haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
 <5482360c-0a0b-e5f5-b88e-4a6ec4d43f7d@linux.com>
 <5d3c4a5e-0c27-4058-adf1-91e9602e5ccb@suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5d3c4a5e-0c27-4058-adf1-91e9602e5ccb@suse.cz>

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 10:01:29AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 4/11/24 6:51 PM, Christoph Lameter (Ampere) wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Haifeng Xu wrote:
> > 
> >> @@ -1875,6 +1875,13 @@ static inline struct slab *alloc_slab_page(gfp_t flags, int node,
> >> 	struct slab *slab;
> >> 	unsigned int order = oo_order(oo);
> >>
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * If fallback to the minimum order allocation and the order is 0,
> >> +	 * clear the __GFP_COMP flag.
> >> +	 */
> >> +	if (order == 0)
> >> +		flags = flags & ~__GFP_COMP;
> > 
> > 
> > This would be better placed in allocate_slab() when the need for a
> > fallback to a lower order is detected after the first call to alloc_slab_page().
> 
> Yeah. Although I don't really see the harm of __GFP_COMP with order-0 in the
> first place, if the only issue is that the error output might be confusing.
> I'd also hope we should eventually get rid of those odd non-__GFP_COMP
> high-order allocations and then can remove the flag.

The patch seems pointless to me.  I wouldn't clear the flag.  If
somebody finds it confusing, that's really just their expectations being
wrong.  folio_alloc() sets __GFP_COMP on all allocations, whether or not
they're order 0.