On 2024/2/2 16:36, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 10:10 +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: >> On 2024/2/1 21:16, Paolo Abeni wrote: >> >>> from the __page_frag_cache_refill() allocator - which never accesses >>> the memory reserves. >> >> I am not really sure I understand the above commemt. >> The semantic is the same as skb_page_frag_refill() as explained above >> as my understanding. Note that __page_frag_cache_refill() use 'gfp_mask' >> for allocating order 3 pages and use the original 'gfp' for allocating >> order 0 pages. > > You are right! I got fooled misreading 'gfp' as 'gfp_mask' in there. > >>> I'm unsure we want to propagate the __page_frag_cache_refill behavior >>> here, the current behavior could be required by some systems. >>> >>> It looks like this series still leave the skb_page_frag_refill() >>> allocator alone, what about dropping this chunk, too? >> >> As explained above, I would prefer to keep it as it is as it seems >> to be quite obvious that we can avoid possible pressure for mm by >> not using memory reserve for order 3 pages as we have the fallback >> for order 0 pages. >> >> Please let me know if there is anything obvious I missed. >> > > I still think/fear that behaviours changes here could have > subtle/negative side effects - even if I agree the change looks safe. > > I think the series without this patch would still achieve its goals and > would be much more uncontroversial. What about move this patch as a > standalone follow-up? Fair enough, will remove that for now. > > Thanks! > > Paolo > > . >
