Re: [RFC-PROTOTYPE 1/1] mm: Add __GFP_FAST_TRY flag

[Uladzislau Rezki]

On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 06:12:03PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 07:02:14PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > 2) There was a proposal from Matthew Wilcox: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/31/1015
> > > 
> > > <snip>
> > > On non-RT, we could make that lock a raw spinlock.  On RT, we could
> > > decline to take the lock.  We'd need to abstract the spin_lock() away
> > > behind zone_lock(zone), but that should be OK.
> > > <snip>
> > > 
> > > It would be great to use any existing flag, say GFP_NOWAIT. Suppose we
> > > decline to take the lock across the page allocator for RT. But there is
> > > at least one path that does it outside of the page allocator. GFP_NOWAIT
> > > can wakeup the kswapd, whereas a "wake-up path" uses sleepable lock:
> > > 
> > > wakeup_kswapd() -> wake_up_interruptible(&pgdat->kswapd_wait).
> > > 
> > > Probably it can be fixed by the excluding of waking of the kswapd process
> > > defining something like below:
> > 
> > Is something missing here?
> > 
> > > what is equal to zero and i am not sure if __get_free_page(0) handles
> > > all that correctly, though it allocates and seems working on my test
> > > machine! Please note it is related to "if we can reuse existing flags".
> > > 
> > > In the meantime, please see below for a patch that adds a __GFP_FAST_TRY,
> > > which can at least serve as a baseline against which other proposals can
> > > be compared. The patch is based on the 5.8.0-rc3.
> > > 
> > > Please RFC.
> > 
> > At first glance __GFP_FAST_TRY (more descriptive name? __GFP_NO_LOCKS?) seems
> > better than doing weird things with GFP_NOWAIT, but depends on the real benefits
> > (hence my first questions).
> 
> I think what Vlad is trying to say is that even GFP_NOWAIT will wake
> kswapd, which involves taking a spinlock.  If you specify 0 in your GFP
> flags, then we won't wake kswapd.  So a simple:
> 
> #define GFP_NOLOCKS	0
> 
> should do the trick (modulo various casting, blah blah blah)
>
Yep, i meant that.

Thank you Matthew!

--
Vlad Rezki