linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: rename and document alloc_pages_exact

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <55AF7F64.1040602@suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:32:52 +0200
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	cbe-oss-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Cliff Whickman <cpw@....com>,
	Robin Holt <robinmholt@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: rename and document alloc_pages_exact_node

On 07/21/2015 11:31 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> 
>> The function alloc_pages_exact_node() was introduced in 6484eb3e2a81 ("page
>> allocator: do not check NUMA node ID when the caller knows the node is valid")
>> as an optimized variant of alloc_pages_node(), that doesn't allow the node id
>> to be -1. Unfortunately the name of the function can easily suggest that the
>> allocation is restricted to the given node. In truth, the node is only
>> preferred, unless __GFP_THISNODE is among the gfp flags.
>>
>> The misleading name has lead to mistakes in the past, see 5265047ac301 ("mm,
>> thp: really limit transparent hugepage allocation to local node") and
>> b360edb43f8e ("mm, mempolicy: migrate_to_node should only migrate to node").
>>
>> To prevent further mistakes, this patch renames the function to
>> alloc_pages_prefer_node() and documents it together with alloc_pages_node().
>>
> 
> alloc_pages_exact_node(), as you said, connotates that the allocation will
> take place on that node or will fail.  So why not go beyond this patch and
> actually make alloc_pages_exact_node() set __GFP_THISNODE and then call
> into a new alloc_pages_prefer_node(), which would be the current
> alloc_pages_exact_node() implementation, and then fix up the callers?

OK, but then we have alloc_pages_node(), alloc_pages_prefer_node() and
alloc_pages_exact_node(). Isn't that a bit too much? The first two
differ only in tiny bit:

static inline struct page *alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask,
                                                unsigned int order)
{
        /* Unknown node is current node */
        if (nid < 0)
                nid = numa_node_id();

        return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask));
}

static inline struct page *alloc_pages_prefer_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask,
                                                unsigned int order)
{
        VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(nid));

        return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask));
}

So _prefer_node is just a tiny optimization over the other one. It
should be maybe called __alloc_pages_node() then? This would perhaps
discourage users outside of mm/arch code (where it may matter). The
savings of a skipped branch is likely dubious anyway... It would be also
nice if alloc_pages_node() could use __alloc_pages_node() internally, but
I'm not sure if all callers are safe wrt the
VM_BUG_ON(!node_online(nid)) part.

So when the alloc_pages_prefer_node is diminished as __alloc_pages_node
or outright removed, then maybe alloc_pages_exact_node() which adds
__GFP_THISNODE on its own, might be a useful wrapper. But I agree with
Christoph it's a duplication of the gfp_flags functionality and I don't
think there would be many users left anyway.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/