[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190116124431.GK24149@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:44:31 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux@...linux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@....com,
will.deacon@....com, mpe@...erman.id.au, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
peterz@...radead.org, christoffer.dall@....com,
marc.zyngier@....com, kirill@...temov.name,
rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
mark.rutland@....com, steve.capper@....com, james.morse@....com,
robin.murphy@....com, aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
shakeelb@...gle.com, rientjes@...gle.com, palmer@...ive.com,
greentime@...estech.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mm: Introduce GFP_PGTABLE
On Wed 16-01-19 04:30:18, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:57:03AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 16-01-19 11:51:32, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > All architectures have been defining their own PGALLOC_GFP as (GFP_KERNEL |
> > > __GFP_ZERO) and using it for allocating page table pages. This causes some
> > > code duplication which can be easily avoided. GFP_KERNEL allocated and
> > > cleared out pages (__GFP_ZERO) are required for page tables on any given
> > > architecture. This creates a new generic GFP flag flag which can be used
> > > for any page table page allocation. Does not cause any functional change.
> > >
> > > GFP_PGTABLE is being added into include/asm-generic/pgtable.h which is the
> > > generic page tabe header just to prevent it's potential misuse as a general
> > > allocation flag if included in include/linux/gfp.h.
> >
> > I haven't reviewed the patch yet but I am wondering whether this is
> > really worth it without going all the way down to unify the common code
> > and remove much more code duplication. Or is this not possible for some
> > reason?
>
> Exactly what I suggested doing in response to v1.
>
> Also, the approach taken here is crazy. x86 has a feature that no other
> architecture has bothered to implement yet -- accounting page tables
> to the process. Yet instead of spreading that goodness to all other
> architectures, Anshuman has gone to more effort to avoid doing that.
Yes, I believe the only reason this is x86 only is that each arch would
have to be tweaked separately. So a cleanup in _that_ regard would be
helpful. There is no real reason to have ptes accounted only for x86.
There might be some exceptions but well, our asm-generic allows to opt
in for generic implementation or override it with a special one. The
later should be an exception rather than the rule.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists