[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220503163905.GM1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 09:39:05 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: liam.howlett@...cle.com, willy@...radead.org, walken.cr@...il.com,
hannes@...xchg.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Memory allocation on speculative fastpaths
On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 06:04:13PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 03-05-22 08:59:13, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > Just following up from off-list discussions yesterday.
> >
> > The requirements to allocate on an RCU-protected speculative fastpath
> > seem to be as follows:
> >
> > 1. Never sleep.
> > 2. Never reclaim.
> > 3. Leave emergency pools alone.
> >
> > Any others?
> >
> > If those rules suffice, and if my understanding of the GFP flags is
> > correct (ha!!!), then the following GFP flags should cover this:
> >
> > __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN
>
> GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN
Ah, good point on GFP_NOWAIT, thank you!
> > Or is this just a fancy way of always returning NULL or some such? ;-)
>
> It could fail quite easily. We would also want to guarantee (by
> documenting I guess) that the page allocator never does anything that
> would depend or invoke rcu_synchronize or something like that.
The GPF_NOWAIT should rule out synchronize_rcu() and similar, correct?
> I believe this is the case currently.
Here is hoping! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists