All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
	NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4 v2] mm: give __GFP_REPEAT a better semantic
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 11:06:04 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87shjvhxmr.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <77fdc6db-5cc1-297f-e049-0d6f824e688c@suse.cz>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7088 bytes --]

On Tue, May 23 2017, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> On 05/16/2017 11:10 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> So, is there some interest in this? I am not going to push this if there
>> is a general consensus that we do not need to do anything about the
>> current situation or need a different approach.
>
> After the recent LWN article [1] I think that we should really support
> marking allocations as failable, without making them too easily failable
> via __GFP_NORETRY. The __GFP_RETRY_MAY_FAIL flag sounds like a good way
> to do that without introducing a new __GFP_MAYFAIL. We could also
> introduce a wrapper such as GFP_KERNEL_MAYFAIL.
>
> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/723317/

Yes please!!!

I particularly like:

> - GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NORETRY - overrides the default allocator behavior and
>   all allocation requests fail early rather than cause disruptive
>   reclaim (one round of reclaim in this implementation). The OOM killer
>   is not invoked.
> - GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL - overrides the default allocator behavior
>   and all allocation requests try really hard. The request will fail if the
>   reclaim cannot make any progress. The OOM killer won't be triggered.
> - GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL - overrides the default allocator behavior
>   and all allocation requests will loop endlessly until they
>   succeed. This might be really dangerous especially for larger orders.

There seems to be a good range here, and the two end points are good
choices.
I like that only __GFP_NOFAIL triggers the OOM.
I would like the middle option to be the default.  I think that is what
many people thought the default was.  I appreciate that making the
transition might be awkward.
Maybe create GFP_DEFAULT which matches the middle option and encourage
that in new code??

We would probably want guidelines on when __GFP_NOFAIL is acceptable.
I assume:
  - no locks held
  - small allocations OK, large allocation need clear justification.
  - error would be exposed to systemcall
???

I think it is important to give kernel developers clear options and make
it easy for them to choose the best option.  This helps to do that.

Thanks,
NeilBrown


>
>> On Tue 07-03-17 16:48:39, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> this is a follow up for __GFP_REPEAT clean up merged in 4.7. The previous
>>> version of this patch series was posted as an RFC
>>> http://lkml.keprnel.org/r/1465212736-14637-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org
>>> Since then I have reconsidered the semantic and made it a counterpart
>>> to the __GFP_NORETRY and made it the other extreme end of the retry
>>> logic. Both are not invoking the OOM killer so they are suitable
>>> for allocation paths with a fallback. Also a new potential user has
>>> emerged (kvmalloc - see patch 4). I have also renamed the flag from
>>> __GFP_RETRY_HARD to __GFP_RETRY_MAY_FAIL as this should be more clear.
>>>
>>> I have kept the RFC status because of the semantic change. The patch 1
>>> is an exception because it should be merge regardless of the rest.
>>>
>>> The main motivation for the change is that the current implementation of
>>> __GFP_REPEAT is not very much useful.
>>>
>>> The documentation says:
>>>  * __GFP_REPEAT: Try hard to allocate the memory, but the allocation attempt
>>>  *   _might_ fail.  This depends upon the particular VM implementation.
>>>
>>> It just fails to mention that this is true only for large (costly) high
>>> order which has been the case since the flag was introduced. A similar
>>> semantic would be really helpful for smal orders as well, though,
>>> because we have places where a failure with a specific fallback error
>>> handling is preferred to a potential endless loop inside the page
>>> allocator.
>>>
>>> The earlier cleanup dropped __GFP_REPEAT usage for low (!costly) order
>>> users so only those which might use larger orders have stayed. One user
>>> which slipped through cracks is addressed in patch 1.
>>>
>>> Let's rename the flag to something more verbose and use it for existing
>>> users. Semantic for those will not change. Then implement low (!costly)
>>> orders failure path which is hit after the page allocator is about to
>>> invoke the oom killer. Now we have a good counterpart for __GFP_NORETRY
>>> and finally can tell try as hard as possible without the OOM killer.
>>>
>>> Xfs code already has an existing annotation for allocations which are
>>> allowed to fail and we can trivially map them to the new gfp flag
>>> because it will provide the semantic KM_MAYFAIL wants.
>>>
>>> kvmalloc will allow also !costly high order allocations to retry hard
>>> before falling back to the vmalloc.
>>>
>>> The patchset is based on the current linux-next.
>>>
>>> Shortlog
>>> Michal Hocko (4):
>>>       s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT
>>>       mm, tree wide: replace __GFP_REPEAT by __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL with more useful semantic
>>>       xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL
>>>       mm: kvmalloc support __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL for all sizes
>>>
>>> Diffstat
>>>  Documentation/DMA-ISA-LPC.txt                |  2 +-
>>>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/pgalloc.h |  2 +-
>>>  arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c          |  2 +-
>>>  arch/s390/mm/pgalloc.c                       |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/mmc/host/wbsd.c                      |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/s390/char/vmcp.c                     |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/target/target_core_transport.c       |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/vhost/net.c                          |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/vhost/scsi.c                         |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/vhost/vsock.c                        |  2 +-
>>>  fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c                   |  2 +-
>>>  fs/btrfs/raid56.c                            |  2 +-
>>>  fs/xfs/kmem.h                                | 10 +++++++++
>>>  include/linux/gfp.h                          | 32 +++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>  include/linux/slab.h                         |  3 ++-
>>>  include/trace/events/mmflags.h               |  2 +-
>>>  mm/hugetlb.c                                 |  4 ++--
>>>  mm/internal.h                                |  2 +-
>>>  mm/page_alloc.c                              | 14 +++++++++---
>>>  mm/sparse-vmemmap.c                          |  4 ++--
>>>  mm/util.c                                    | 14 ++++--------
>>>  mm/vmalloc.c                                 |  2 +-
>>>  mm/vmscan.c                                  |  8 +++----
>>>  net/core/dev.c                               |  6 +++---
>>>  net/core/skbuff.c                            |  2 +-
>>>  net/sched/sch_fq.c                           |  2 +-
>>>  tools/perf/builtin-kmem.c                    |  2 +-
>>>  27 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
>>> the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
>>> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
>>> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
>> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-24  1:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-07 15:48 [RFC PATCH 0/4 v2] mm: give __GFP_REPEAT a better semantic Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48 ` [PATCH 1/4] s390: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48   ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08  8:23   ` Heiko Carstens
2017-03-08  8:23     ` Heiko Carstens
2017-03-08 14:11     ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08 14:11       ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-09  8:27       ` Heiko Carstens
2017-03-09  8:27         ` Heiko Carstens
2017-03-07 15:48 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] mm, tree wide: replace __GFP_REPEAT by __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL with more useful semantic Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48   ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-25  1:21   ` NeilBrown
2017-05-31 11:42     ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-31 11:42       ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-03  2:24   ` Wei Yang
2017-06-05  6:43     ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-05  6:43       ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-06  3:04       ` Wei Yang
2017-06-06 12:03         ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-06 12:03           ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-07  2:10           ` Wei Yang
2017-06-09  7:32             ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-09  7:32               ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] xfs: map KM_MAYFAIL to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48   ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 17:05   ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-03-07 17:05     ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-03-08  9:35     ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08  9:35       ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08 11:23   ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-03-08 11:23     ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-03-08 12:54     ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08 12:54       ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08 15:06   ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-08 15:06     ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-09  9:16     ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-09  9:16       ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] mm: kvmalloc support __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL for all sizes Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 15:48   ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-16  9:10 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4 v2] mm: give __GFP_REPEAT a better semantic Michal Hocko
2017-05-16  9:10   ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-23  8:12   ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-23  8:12     ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-24  1:06     ` NeilBrown [this message]
2017-05-24  7:34       ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-24  7:34         ` Michal Hocko

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=87shjvhxmr.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name \
    --to=neilb@suse.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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.