On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 07:46:26PM +0800, Hailong Liu wrote:
On Fri, 16. Aug 12:13, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 05:12:32PM +0800, Hailong Liu wrote:
On Thu, 15. Aug 22:07, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 11:41:42 +0200 Uladzislau Rezki urezki@gmail.com wrote:
> Acked-by: Barry Song baohua@kernel.org > > because we already have a fallback here: > > void *__vmalloc_node_range_noprof : > > fail: > if (shift > PAGE_SHIFT) { > shift = PAGE_SHIFT; > align = real_align; > size = real_size; > goto again; > }
This really deserves a comment because this is not really clear at all. The code is also fragile and it would benefit from some re-org.
Thanks for the fix.
Acked-by: Michal Hocko mhocko@suse.com
I agree. This is only clear for people who know the code. A "fallback" to order-0 should be commented.
It's been a week. Could someone please propose a fixup patch to add this comment?
Hi Andrew:
Do you mean that I need to send a v2 patch with the the comments included?
It is better to post v2.
Got it.
But before, could you please comment on:
in case of order-0, bulk path may easily fail and fallback to the single page allocator. If an request is marked as NO_FAIL, i am talking about order-0 request, your change breaks GFP_NOFAIL for !order.
Am i missing something obvious?
For order-0, alloc_pages(GFP_X | __GFP_NOFAIL, 0), buddy allocator will handle the flag correctly. IMO we don't need to handle the flag here.
Agree. As for comment, i meant to comment the below fallback:
<snip> fail: if (shift > PAGE_SHIFT) { shift = PAGE_SHIFT; align = real_align; size = real_size; goto again; } <snip>
-- Uladzislau Rezki