On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:49:02 +0900 js1304@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
>
> Currently, memalloc_nocma_{save/restore} API that prevents CMA area
> in page allocation is implemented by using current_gfp_context(). However,
> there are two problems of this implementation.
>
> First, this doesn't work for allocation fastpath. In the fastpath,
> original gfp_mask is used since current_gfp_context() is introduced in
> order to control reclaim and it is on slowpath. So, CMA area can be
> allocated through the allocation fastpath even if
> memalloc_nocma_{save/restore} APIs are used.
Whoops.
> Currently, there is just
> one user for these APIs and it has a fallback method to prevent actual
> problem.
Shouldn't the patch remove the fallback method?
> Second, clearing __GFP_MOVABLE in current_gfp_context() has a side effect
> to exclude the memory on the ZONE_MOVABLE for allocation target.
More whoops.
Could we please have a description of the end-user-visible effects of
this change? Very much needed when proposing a -stable backport, I think.
d7fefcc8de9147c is over a year old. Why did we only just discover
this? This makes one wonder how serious those end-user-visible effects
are?
> To fix these problems, this patch changes the implementation to exclude
> CMA area in page allocation. Main point of this change is using the
> alloc_flags. alloc_flags is mainly used to control allocation so it fits
> for excluding CMA area in allocation.
>
