All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "DRI Development" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Intel Graphics Development" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Dave Chinner" <david@fromorbit.com>, "Qian Cai" <cai@lca.pw>,
	"Thomas Hellström" <thomas_os@shipmail.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: Track mmu notifiers in fs_reclaim_acquire/release
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 14:23:16 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201120182316.GP244516@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201120095445.1195585-2-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:54:42AM +0100, 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.
> 
> v2: Review from Thomas Hellstrom:
> - unbotch the fs_reclaim context check, I accidentally inverted it,
>   but it didn't blow up because I inverted it immediately
> - fix compiling for !CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER
> 
> v3: Unbreak the PF_MEMALLOC_ context flags. Thanks to Qian for the
> report and Dave for explaining what I failed to see.
> 
> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
> Cc: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
> Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Thomas Hellström (Intel) <thomas_os@shipmail.org>
> 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>
> Cc: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> ---
>  mm/mmu_notifier.c |  7 -------
>  mm/page_alloc.c   | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>

Jason

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	"Intel Graphics Development" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Dave Chinner" <david@fromorbit.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"DRI Development" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	"Qian Cai" <cai@lca.pw>,
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Thomas Hellström" <thomas_os@shipmail.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: Track mmu notifiers in fs_reclaim_acquire/release
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 14:23:16 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201120182316.GP244516@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201120095445.1195585-2-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:54:42AM +0100, 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.
> 
> v2: Review from Thomas Hellstrom:
> - unbotch the fs_reclaim context check, I accidentally inverted it,
>   but it didn't blow up because I inverted it immediately
> - fix compiling for !CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER
> 
> v3: Unbreak the PF_MEMALLOC_ context flags. Thanks to Qian for the
> report and Dave for explaining what I failed to see.
> 
> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
> Cc: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
> Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Thomas Hellström (Intel) <thomas_os@shipmail.org>
> 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>
> Cc: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> ---
>  mm/mmu_notifier.c |  7 -------
>  mm/page_alloc.c   | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>

Jason
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2020-11-20 18:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-20  9:54 [PATCH 0/3] mmu_notifier fs fs_reclaim lockdep annotations Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm: Track mmu notifiers in fs_reclaim_acquire/release Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 18:23   ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2020-11-20 18:23     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-11-20  9:54 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm: Extract might_alloc() debug check Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 17:19   ` Randy Dunlap
2020-11-20 17:19     ` [Intel-gfx] " Randy Dunlap
2020-11-20 17:19     ` Randy Dunlap
2020-11-20 17:31     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 17:31       ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 17:31       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 17:31       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 18:07   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-11-20 18:07     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-11-24 14:34     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-24 14:34       ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-24 14:34       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-24 15:27       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-11-24 15:27         ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-11-20  9:54 ` [PATCH 3/3] locking/selftests: Add testcases for fs_reclaim Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 12:31   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20 12:31     ` [Intel-gfx] " Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20 12:31     ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20  9:54 ` [PATCH] drm/ttm: don't set page->mapping Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 10:04   ` Christian König
2020-11-20 10:04     ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König
2020-11-20 10:04     ` Christian König
2020-11-20 10:05     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 10:05       ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 10:05       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 10:05       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 10:08       ` Christian König
2020-11-20 10:08         ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König
2020-11-20 10:08         ` Christian König
2020-11-20 15:01         ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 15:01           ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 15:01           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 10:14 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for " Patchwork
2020-11-20 10:16 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2020-11-20 10:45 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork

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=20201120182316.GP244516@ziepe.ca \
    --to=jgg@ziepe.ca \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cai@lca.pw \
    --cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=thomas_os@shipmail.org \
    --cc=willy@infradead.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.