Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] alloc_tag: config to store page allocation tag refs in page flags

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri 18-10-24 09:04:24, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 6:03 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue 15-10-24 08:58:59, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 8:42 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Right, I think what John is concerned about (and me as well) is that
> > > > once a new feature really needs a page flag, there will be objection
> > > > like "no you can't, we need them for allocation tags otherwise that
> > > > feature will be degraded".
> > >
> > > I do understand your concern but IMHO the possibility of degrading a
> > > feature should not be a reason to always operate at degraded capacity
> > > (which is what we have today). If one is really concerned about
> > > possible future regression they can set
> > > CONFIG_PGALLOC_TAG_USE_PAGEFLAGS=n and keep what we have today. That's
> > > why I'm strongly advocating that we do need
> > > CONFIG_PGALLOC_TAG_USE_PAGEFLAGS so that the user has control over how
> > > this scarce resource is used.
> >
> > I really do not think users will know how/why to setup this and I wouldn't
> > even bother them thinking about that at all TBH.
> >
> > This is an implementation detail. It is fine to reuse unused flags space
> > as a storage as a performance optimization but why do you want users to
> > bother with that? Why would they ever want to say N here?
> 
> In this patch you can find a couple of warnings that look like this:
> 
> pr_warn("With module %s there are too many tags to fit in %d page flag
> bits. Memory profiling is disabled!\n", mod->name,
> NR_UNUSED_PAGEFLAG_BITS);
> emitted when we run out of page flag bits during a module loading,
> 
> pr_err("%s: alignment %lu is incompatible with allocation tag
> indexing, disable CONFIG_PGALLOC_TAG_USE_PAGEFLAGS",  mod->name,
> align);
> emitted when the arch-specific section alignment is incompatible with
> alloc_tag indexing.

You are asking users to workaround implementation issue by configuration
which sounds like a really bad idea. Why cannot you make the fallback
automatic?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux