Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: move internal mempolicy APIs to new internal header
Gregory Price <[email protected]> Mon, 20 Jul 2026 13:40:37 -0400
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-nfs,dev.linux.lists.iommu,dev.linux.lists.loongarch,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <al5cqn34Xq19f5HG@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F> |
On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 04:57:37PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote: > 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]/ > fwiw i've been fiddling with a module side mempolicy interface for a bit to allow a clean guest_memfd() + mempolicy() interaction [0][1]. I saw this and thought "maybe, maybe not entirely". there is definitely some oddities in the mempolicy uapi (internal-only flags that are exposed to the uapi is odd) that some of the interface is worth internalizing. (fyi i've converted my private node work on top of the alloc_flags addition + new zonelists, new rfc is being posted today, your recent merges were timely). ~Gregory [0] https://github.com/gourryinverse/linux/commit/b25bb27602fe512733450a97ac31ef4387b7e727 [1] https://github.com/gourryinverse/linux/commit/670f7dd81ef33a9385985a54b8ad6bc070b2d581