From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
kernel-team <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
clm@fb.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, dbavatar@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC V3] net: don't wait for order-3 page allocation
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:49:25 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1506301646500.5359@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150618154716.GH5858@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> That is to be discussed. Most allocations already express their interest
> in memory reserves by __GFP_HIGH directly or by GFP_ATOMIC indirectly.
> So maybe we do not need any additional flag here. There are not that
> many ~__GFP_WAIT and most of them seem to require it _only_ because the
> context doesn't allow for sleeping (e.g. to prevent from deadlocks).
>
We're talking about a patch that is being backported to stable.
Regardless of what improvements can be made to specify that an allocation
shouldn't be able to access reserves (and what belongs solely in the page
allocator proper) independent of __GFP_NO_KSWAPD, that can be cleaned up
at a later time. I don't anticipate that cleanup to be backported to
stable, and my primary concern here is the ability for this allocations to
now access, and possibly deplete, memory reserves.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
kernel-team <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
clm@fb.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, dbavatar@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC V3] net: don't wait for order-3 page allocation
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:49:25 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1506301646500.5359@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150618154716.GH5858@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> That is to be discussed. Most allocations already express their interest
> in memory reserves by __GFP_HIGH directly or by GFP_ATOMIC indirectly.
> So maybe we do not need any additional flag here. There are not that
> many ~__GFP_WAIT and most of them seem to require it _only_ because the
> context doesn't allow for sleeping (e.g. to prevent from deadlocks).
>
We're talking about a patch that is being backported to stable.
Regardless of what improvements can be made to specify that an allocation
shouldn't be able to access reserves (and what belongs solely in the page
allocator proper) independent of __GFP_NO_KSWAPD, that can be cleaned up
at a later time. I don't anticipate that cleanup to be backported to
stable, and my primary concern here is the ability for this allocations to
now access, and possibly deplete, memory reserves.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-30 23:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-11 23:50 [RFC V3] net: don't wait for order-3 page allocation Shaohua Li
2015-06-11 23:50 ` Shaohua Li
2015-06-12 0:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-06-12 0:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-06-12 0:34 ` David Miller
2015-06-12 0:34 ` David Miller
2015-06-12 9:36 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-06-12 9:36 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-06-17 23:02 ` David Rientjes
2015-06-17 23:02 ` David Rientjes
2015-06-18 14:30 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-18 14:30 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-18 14:35 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-06-18 14:43 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-18 14:43 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-18 15:22 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-06-18 15:47 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-18 15:47 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-30 23:49 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2015-06-30 23:49 ` David Rientjes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.10.1506301646500.5359@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
--to=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=Kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dbavatar@gmail.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shli@fb.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.