Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm: discard __GFP_ATOMIC

[Mike Rapoport]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 09:35:24AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 03:49:44PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > Hi Mel,
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 03:17:01PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > From: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > __GFP_ATOMIC serves little purpose.  Its main effect is to set
> > > ALLOC_HARDER which adds a few little boosts to increase the chance of an
> > > allocation succeeding, one of which is to lower the water-mark at which it
> > > will succeed.
> > > 
> > > It is *always* paired with __GFP_HIGH which sets ALLOC_HIGH which also
> > > adjusts this watermark.  It is probable that other users of __GFP_HIGH
> > > should benefit from the other little bonuses that __GFP_ATOMIC gets.
> > > 
> > > __GFP_ATOMIC also gives a warning if used with __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM.
> > > There is little point to this.  We already get a might_sleep() warning if
> > > __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is set.
> > > 
> > > __GFP_ATOMIC allows the "watermark_boost" to be side-stepped.  It is
> > > probable that testing ALLOC_HARDER is a better fit here.
> > > 
> > > __GFP_ATOMIC is used by tegra-smmu.c to check if the allocation might
> > > sleep.  This should test __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM instead.
> > > 
> > > This patch:
> > >  - removes __GFP_ATOMIC
> > >  - allows __GFP_HIGH allocations to ignore watermark boosting as well
> > >    as GFP_ATOMIC requests.
> > >  - makes other adjustments as suggested by the above.
> > > 
> > > The net result is not change to GFP_ATOMIC allocations.  Other
> > > allocations that use __GFP_HIGH will benefit from a few different extra
> > > privileges.  This affects:
> > >   xen, dm, md, ntfs3
> > >   the vermillion frame buffer
> > >   hibernation
> > >   ksm
> > >   swap
> > > all of which likely produce more benefit than cost if these selected
> > > allocation are more likely to succeed quickly.
> > > 
> > > [mgorman: Minor adjustments to rework on top of a series]
> > > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/163712397076.13692.4727608274002939094@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/mm/balance.rst   |  2 +-
> > 
> > Documentation/core-api/memory-allocation.rst needs an update as well, and
> > there are other mentions of GFP_ATOMIC in Documentation/
> > 
> 
> What part do you think needs updating in that file?
>
> There are two references to GFP_ATOMIC in that file, one about accessing
> reserves and another about non-sleeping allocations and the accuracy
> does not change after the series.

You are right, I got confused.

> If anything, this statement should change because it invites GFP_ATOMIC
> abuse for spurious reasons
> 
>   * If you think that accessing memory reserves is justified and the kernel
>     will be stressed unless allocation succeeds, you may use ``GFP_ATOMIC``.

Care to send a patch? ;-)
 
> There are other references to GFP_ATOMIC in Documentation/ that are are a
> little inaccurate but not in a way that is harmful and is not changed by
> the series. For example;
> 
> 	GFP_ATOMIC requests are kernel internal allocations that must
> 	be satisfied, immediately.  The kernel may drop some request,
> 	in rare cases even panic, if a GFP_ATOMIC alloc fails.
> 
> This is a stronger statement than GFP_ATOMIC deserves but it's close enough
> in the given context.
> 
> -- 
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.