On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 03:42:59PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 08:41:42PM GMT, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 03:39:47PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > Given the amount of plumbing required here, it's clear that passing gfp > > > flags is the less safe way of doing it, and this really does belong in > > > the allocation context. > > > > > > Failure to pass gfp flags correctly (which we know is something that > > > happens today, e.g. vmalloc -> pte allocation) means you're introducing > > > a deadlock. > > > > The problem with vmalloc is that the page table allocation _doesn't_ > > take a GFP parameter. > > yeah, I know. I posted patches to plumb it through, which were nacked by > Linus. > > And we're trying to get away from passing gfp flags directly, are we > not? I just don't buy the GFP_NOFAIL unsafety argument. The problem with the giant invasive change of "getting away from passing GFP flags directly" is that you need to build consensus for what it looks like and convince everyone that you have a solution that solves all the problems, or at least doesn't make any of those problems worse. You haven't done that, you've just committed code that the MM people hate (indeed already rejected), and set back the idea. Look, it's not your job to fix it, but if you want to do it, do it properly.
