Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: move internal mempolicy APIs to new internal header
"Brendan Jackman" <[email protected]> Thu, 16 Jul 2026 16:57:37 +0000
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.loongarch,dev.linux.lists.iommu,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-nfs,org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu Jul 16, 2026 at 4:48 PM UTC, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 02:30:10PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote: >> There are no external users for this surface, reduce the scope. >> -struct folio *folio_alloc_mpol_noprof(gfp_t gfp, unsigned int order, >> - struct mempolicy *mpol, pgoff_t ilx, int nid); > > Hm. So what we're saying is that allocations which respect mempolicy are > only for core mm and not for, eg, device drivers to do. Is that really > what we want to say? I don't think so, because that's inconsistent > with having just widened __filemap_get_folio_mpol to allow guest_memfd > to specify a mempolicy. Yeah I agree, mempolicy definitely seems like a "public concept". All I'm saying here is this specific function doesn't have any external users so it doesn't need to be an external header. ... With the ulterior motive that I want to add a new parameter to it that actually _is_ mm-internal. Namely, alloc_flags, so I can add ALLOC_UNMAPPED to implement AS_NO_DIRECT_MAP, i.e. the next iteration of [0]. So basically this is about trying to extend the allocator without creating a GFP flag. So I'm envisaging if an external user arises for it later, we'd slap two underscores on the beginning of the internal one, (with the alloc_flags arg), and then bring back the public one as a wrapper. Does that make sense? [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/