[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170119095610.GL30786@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:56:12 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Anatoly Stepanov <astepanov@...udlinux.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers
On Thu 19-01-17 01:09:35, John Hubbard wrote:
[...]
> So that leaves us with maybe this for documentation?
>
> * Reclaim modifiers - __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOFAIL should not be passed in.
> * Passing in __GFP_REPEAT is supported, and will cause the following behavior:
> * for larger (>64KB) allocations, the first part (kmalloc) will do some
> * retrying, before falling back to vmalloc.
I am worried this is just too vague. It doesn't really help user to
decide whether "do some retrying" is what he really want's or needs.
So I would rather see the following.
"
* Reclaim modifiers - __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOFAIL are not supported. __GFP_REPEAT
* is supported only for large (>32kB) allocations and it should be used when using
* kmalloc is preferable because vmalloc fallback has visible performance drawbacks.
"
I would also add
"
Any use of gfp flags outside of GFP_KERNEL should be consulted with mm people.
"
Does it sound any better?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists