From: "Thomas Hellström (Intel)" <thomas_os@shipmail.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
"Intel Graphics Development" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@mellanox.com>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/18] mm: Track mmu notifiers in fs_reclaim_acquire/release
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 14:01:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <15bcdddd-b560-e98b-eaec-62277b5ab4af@shipmail.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200604081224.863494-2-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Hi, Daniel,
Please see below.
On 6/4/20 10:12 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> fs_reclaim_acquire/release nicely catch recursion issues when
> allocating GFP_KERNEL memory against shrinkers (which gpu drivers tend
> to use to keep the excessive caches in check). For mmu notifier
> recursions we do have lockdep annotations since 23b68395c7c7
> ("mm/mmu_notifiers: add a lockdep map for invalidate_range_start/end").
>
> But these only fire if a path actually results in some pte
> invalidation - for most small allocations that's very rarely the case.
> The other trouble is that pte invalidation can happen any time when
> __GFP_RECLAIM is set. Which means only really GFP_ATOMIC is a safe
> choice, GFP_NOIO isn't good enough to avoid potential mmu notifier
> recursion.
>
> I was pondering whether we should just do the general annotation, but
> there's always the risk for false positives. Plus I'm assuming that
> the core fs and io code is a lot better reviewed and tested than
> random mmu notifier code in drivers. Hence why I decide to only
> annotate for that specific case.
>
> Furthermore even if we'd create a lockdep map for direct reclaim, we'd
> still need to explicit pull in the mmu notifier map - there's a lot
> more places that do pte invalidation than just direct reclaim, these
> two contexts arent the same.
>
> Note that the mmu notifiers needing their own independent lockdep map
> is also the reason we can't hold them from fs_reclaim_acquire to
> fs_reclaim_release - it would nest with the acquistion in the pte
> invalidation code, causing a lockdep splat. And we can't remove the
> annotations from pte invalidation and all the other places since
> they're called from many other places than page reclaim. Hence we can
> only do the equivalent of might_lock, but on the raw lockdep map.
>
> With this we can also remove the lockdep priming added in 66204f1d2d1b
> ("mm/mmu_notifiers: prime lockdep") since the new annotations are
> strictly more powerful.
>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> ---
> This is part of a gpu lockdep annotation series simply because it
> really helps to catch issues where gpu subsystem locks and primitives
> can deadlock with themselves through allocations and mmu notifiers.
> But aside from that motivation it should be completely free-standing,
> and can land through -mm/-rdma/-hmm or any other tree really whenever.
> -Daniel
> ---
> mm/mmu_notifier.c | 7 -------
> mm/page_alloc.c | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> index 06852b896fa6..5d578b9122f8 100644
> --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> @@ -612,13 +612,6 @@ int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *subscription,
> lockdep_assert_held_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 0);
>
> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)) {
> - fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
> - lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> - lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> - fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
> - }
> -
> if (!mm->notifier_subscriptions) {
> /*
> * kmalloc cannot be called under mm_take_all_locks(), but we
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 13cc653122b7..f8a222db4a53 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@
> #include <trace/events/oom.h>
> #include <linux/prefetch.h>
> #include <linux/mm_inline.h>
> +#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
> #include <linux/migrate.h>
> #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
> #include <linux/sched/rt.h>
> @@ -4124,7 +4125,7 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_fla
> static struct lockdep_map __fs_reclaim_map =
> STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT("fs_reclaim", &__fs_reclaim_map);
>
> -static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> +static bool __need_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask);
>
> @@ -4136,10 +4137,6 @@ static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
> return false;
>
> - /* We're only interested __GFP_FS allocations for now */
> - if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> - return false;
> -
> if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOLOCKDEP)
> return false;
>
> @@ -4158,15 +4155,23 @@ void __fs_reclaim_release(void)
>
> void fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> - if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
> - __fs_reclaim_acquire();
> + if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
> + if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
Hmm. Shouldn't this be "if (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)" or am I misunderstanding?
> + __fs_reclaim_acquire();
#ifdef CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER?
> +
> + lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> + lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> +
> + }
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_acquire);
>
> void fs_reclaim_release(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> - if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
> - __fs_reclaim_release();
> + if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
> + if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
Same here?
> + __fs_reclaim_release();
> + }
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_release);
> #endif
One suggested test case would perhaps be to call madvise(madv_dontneed)
on a subpart of a transhuge page. That would IIRC trigger a page split
and interesting mmu notifier calls....
Thanks,
Thomas
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-10 12:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 106+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-04 8:12 [PATCH 00/18] dma-fence lockdep annotations, round 2 Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 01/18] mm: Track mmu notifiers in fs_reclaim_acquire/release Daniel Vetter
2020-06-10 12:01 ` Thomas Hellström (Intel) [this message]
2020-06-10 12:25 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-10 19:41 ` [PATCH] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 14:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-21 17:42 ` Qian Cai
2020-06-21 18:07 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 20:01 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 22:09 ` Qian Cai
2020-06-23 16:17 ` Qian Cai
2020-06-23 22:13 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 22:29 ` Qian Cai
2020-06-23 22:31 ` Dave Chinner
2020-06-23 22:36 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 17:00 ` [PATCH 01/18] " Qian Cai
2020-06-21 17:28 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-21 17:46 ` Qian Cai
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 02/18] dma-buf: minor doc touch-ups Daniel Vetter
2020-06-10 13:07 ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 03/18] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:57 ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-04 9:21 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 9:26 ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-04 9:36 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-05 13:29 ` [PATCH] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-05 14:30 ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-11 9:57 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2020-06-10 14:21 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 03/18] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-06-10 15:17 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 10:36 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-06-11 11:29 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 14:29 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-06-11 15:03 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 8:00 ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-11 8:44 ` Dave Airlie
2020-06-11 9:01 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Stone
2020-06-19 8:25 ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-19 8:51 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 9:13 ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-19 9:43 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 13:12 ` Chris Wilson
2020-06-22 9:16 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-07-09 7:29 ` Daniel Stone
2020-07-09 8:01 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-12 7:06 ` [PATCH] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 04/18] dma-fence: prime " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 7:30 ` [Linaro-mm-sig] " Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2020-06-11 8:34 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-11 14:15 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-11 23:35 ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-12 5:11 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 18:13 ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-23 7:39 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 18:44 ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-23 19:02 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-16 12:07 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-16 14:53 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-17 7:57 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-17 15:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-18 14:42 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-17 6:48 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-17 15:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-18 15:00 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-18 17:23 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 7:22 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 11:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 15:06 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 15:15 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 16:19 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 17:23 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 18:09 ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 18:18 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 19:48 ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-19 19:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 20:03 ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-19 20:31 ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-22 11:46 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-22 20:15 ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-23 0:02 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 20:10 ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 20:43 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-19 20:59 ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-23 0:05 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-19 19:11 ` Alex Deucher
2020-06-19 19:30 ` Felix Kuehling
2020-06-19 19:40 ` Jerome Glisse
2020-06-19 19:51 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-06-12 7:01 ` [PATCH] " Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 05/18] drm/vkms: Annotate vblank timer Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 06/18] drm/vblank: Annotate with dma-fence signalling section Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 07/18] drm/atomic-helper: Add dma-fence annotations Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 08/18] drm/amdgpu: add dma-fence annotations to atomic commit path Daniel Vetter
2020-06-23 10:51 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 09/18] drm/scheduler: use dma-fence annotations in main thread Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 10/18] drm/amdgpu: use dma-fence annotations in cs_submit() Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 11/18] drm/amdgpu: s/GFP_KERNEL/GFP_ATOMIC in scheduler code Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 12/18] drm/amdgpu: DC also loves to allocate stuff where it shouldn't Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 13/18] drm/amdgpu/dc: Stop dma_resv_lock inversion in commit_tail Daniel Vetter
2020-06-05 8:30 ` Pierre-Eric Pelloux-Prayer
2020-06-05 12:41 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 14/18] drm/scheduler: use dma-fence annotations in tdr work Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 15/18] drm/amdgpu: use dma-fence annotations for gpu reset code Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 16/18] Revert "drm/amdgpu: add fbdev suspend/resume on gpu reset" Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 17/18] drm/amdgpu: gpu recovery does full modesets Daniel Vetter
2020-06-04 8:12 ` [PATCH 18/18] drm/i915: Annotate dma_fence_work Daniel Vetter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=15bcdddd-b560-e98b-eaec-62277b5ab4af@shipmail.org \
--to=thomas_os@shipmail.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jgg@mellanox.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).