From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta0.migadu.com (out-4.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CBAB3624CC for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2026 10:52:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.4 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790938352; cv=none; b=Geu0rRSVxf9SaVplRDAxNZMHzn8KY/5XFPZGfg49A/yr/LTBQ2k0K5ZrWA0YZUAOGD4Jvyu9JTR8UiM3p5OgC0DPuy96c1HIkch0Y2IRu0dp62/rtaf3A27zQeeMoI+MJliH+PIWwwjodoYrBK3loQZcORF1Sw/lSjHAkEpnJwM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790938352; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2D44/9zUPSKPVqBDTTqQTwAsiNBVg+7q3Q67Op/M820=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Cc:Subject:From:To: References:In-Reply-To; b=KhWjfb+r+10q3sMWyfqgIJaCtstWYxWRQaS+dj4fZrrxNd0CX/rHZout2V/rzFFGQ8/rmUNX0jm0sVHW63las9jAj9TGfenCxheeAPpfZcNxAxFG24zPZFr8ZIHVOJG8Ofo6ksUykOWNCO3uuiBQEkbqrBXisr6NPk0MR0ohZj4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=QtbFyhaq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.4 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="QtbFyhaq" X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=2D44/9zUPSKPVqBDTTqQTwAsiNBVg+7q3Q67Op/M820=; c=simple/simple; d=linux.dev; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1790938348; v=1; x=1791543148; b=QtbFyhaq6lpw2b/wi358vHULtBCIvXBb2moEhnglY0kwC6Okmr+W8ObtW8mKmR24uyBQRV7E Os8ufvOpLzKBrhnaFHn4REPK/WvcD1jY4y88K6dtG7B0O6qJUa8kZfBkl9uBtvGIdBBOWU0j8b8 umnyub5z3hntPwoL0ALKIFr0= X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.migadu.com with ESMTPS id ff74b3509b06fa11; Fri, 02 Oct 2026 10:52:28 +0000 X-Mizu-Trace-ID: ff74b3509b06fa11 X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2026 11:52:22 +0100 Message-Id: Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: let the bulk and folio allocators carry alloc_flags From: "Brendan Jackman" To: "Gregory Price" , , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0 References: <20260914155115.439742-1-gourry@gourry.net> In-Reply-To: On Mon Sep 14, 2026 at 5:54 PM BST, Gregory Price wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 11:51:14AM -0400, Gregory Price wrote: >> __alloc_pages_noprof() takes an explicit alloc_flags, but the bulk and >> folio entry points do not, so callers cannot select allocator behaviour >> (e.g. an alternate zonelist) through them. >>=20 >> Thread alloc_flags through both, matching __alloc_pages_noprof(), and >> keep the flag-carrying primitives mm-internal (page_alloc.h) so the >> public gfp.h wrappers stay flag-free: >>=20 >> - add __alloc_pages_bulk_noprof(gfp, ..., alloc_flags) in page_alloc.h >> alloc_pages_bulk_noprof() becomes a wrapper passing ALLOC_DEFAULT >>=20 >> - give __folio_alloc_noprof() an alloc_flags parameter and moves >> __folio_alloc_node_noprof() moves into page_alloc.h >> __folio_alloc_noprof() is no longer exported >>=20 >> No functional change: every caller passes ALLOC_DEFAULT. >>=20 >> Cc: Brendan Jackman >> Signed-off-by: Gregory Price >> --- >>=20 >> Brendan this will conflict mildly with your ALLOC_UNMAPPED work, >> because you add an init_alloc_flags call in alloc_pages_bulk_noprof : >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20260726-page_alloc-unmapped-v3-20-6f57= 29aa9832@google.com/ >>=20 >> I wanted to pull this out ahead to try to deal with the conflict. >>=20 > > Sashiko pointed out some issues that arise from rebasing on the recent > ALLOC_NOLOCK work, and in a quick review I found a similar slow-path > fallback issue with the NOBLOCK patch separate of this patch. > > Brendan, if you're alright with it, can I pull the NOBLOCK patch out > ahead into a 2-commit series and I'll add the small fixups? Hey, sorry about the silence I let LKML pile up rather badly, it's been quite a month.. Yes I am totally alright with this (glad to see you went ahead).