[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200924111632.GD2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 13:16:32 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 2/4] mm: Add __rcu_alloc_page_lockless() func.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:16:14AM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> Other option is if we had unconditionally enabled PREEMPT_COUNT config.
> It would be easy to identify a context type and invoke a page allocator
> if a context is preemtale. But as of now preemptable() is "half" working.
> Thomas uploaded patches to make it unconditional. But it can be blocked.
While I in principle support Thomas' patch, I think this is an abuse and
still complete wrong.
Not all preemptible() context can deal with GFP_KERNEL (GFP_NOFS
existing should be a clue). !preemptible context cannot unconditionally
deal with GFP_NOWAIT, consider using it while holding zone->lock.
The preemption context does not say antying much useful about the
allocation context.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists