IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
GFP_TEMPORARY was introduced by commit e12ba74d8f ("Group short-lived
and reclaimable kernel allocations") along with __GFP_RECLAIMABLE. It's
primary motivation was to allow users to tell that an allocation is
short lived and so the allocator can try to place such allocations close
together and prevent long term fragmentation. As much as this sounds
like a reasonable semantic it becomes much less clear when to use the
highlevel GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag. How long is temporary? Can the
context holding that memory sleep? Can it take locks? It seems there is
no good answer for those questions.
The current implementation of GFP_TEMPORARY is basically GFP_KERNEL |
__GFP_RECLAIMABLE which in itself is tricky because basically none of
the existing caller provide a way to reclaim the allocated memory. So
this is rather misleading and hard to evaluate for any benefits.
I have checked some random users and none of them has added the flag
with a specific justification. I suspect most of them just copied from
other existing users and others just thought it might be a good idea to
use without any measuring. This suggests that GFP_TEMPORARY just
motivates for cargo cult usage without any reasoning.
I believe that our gfp flags are quite complex already and especially
those with highlevel semantic should be clearly defined to prevent from
confusion and abuse. Therefore I propose dropping GFP_TEMPORARY and
replace all existing users to simply use GFP_KERNEL. Please note that
SLAB users with shrinkers will still get __GFP_RECLAIMABLE heuristic and
so they will be placed properly for memory fragmentation prevention.
I can see reasons we might want some gfp flag to reflect shorterm
allocations but I propose starting from a clear semantic definition and
only then add users with proper justification.
This was been brought up before LSF this year by Matthew [1] and it
turned out that GFP_TEMPORARY really doesn't have a clear semantic. It
seems to be a heuristic without any measured advantage for most (if not
all) its current users. The follow up discussion has revealed that
opinions on what might be temporary allocation differ a lot between
developers. So rather than trying to tweak existing users into a
semantic which they haven't expected I propose to simply remove the flag
and start from scratch if we really need a semantic for short term
allocations.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170118054945.GD18349@bombadil.infradead.org
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix typo]
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding-style fixes]
[sfr@canb.auug.org.au: drm/i915: fix up]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170816144703.378d4f4d@canb.auug.org.au
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170728091904.14627-1-mhocko@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Insulate users from changes to the internal hole tracking within
struct drm_mm_node by using an accessor for hole_follows.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
[danvet: resolve conflicts in i915_vma.c]
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Using mm->color_adjust makes the eviction scanner much tricker since we
don't know the actual neighbours of the target hole until after it is
created (after scanning is complete). To work out whether we need to
evict the neighbours because they impact upon the hole, we have to then
check the hole afterwards - requiring an extra step in the user of the
eviction scanner when they apply color_adjust.
v2: Massage kerneldoc.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20161222083641.2691-34-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
The scan state occupies a large proportion of the struct drm_mm and is
rarely used and only contains temporary state. That makes it suitable to
moving to its struct and onto the stack of the callers.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
[danvet: Fix up etnaviv to compile, was missing a BUG_ON.]
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
First we introduce a smattering of infrastructure for writing selftests.
The idea is that we have a test module that exercises a particular
portion of the exported API, and that module provides a set of tests
that can either be run as an ensemble via kselftest or individually via
an igt harness (in this case igt/drm_mm). To accommodate selecting
individual tests, we export a boolean parameter to control selection of
each test - that is hidden inside a bunch of reusable boilerplate macros
to keep writing the tests simple.
v2: Choose a random random_seed unless one is specified by the user.
v3: More parameters to control max_iterations and max_prime of the
tests.
Testcase: igt/drm_mm
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20161222083641.2691-7-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
