From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
djwong@kernel.org, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, logfs@logfs.org,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-afs@lists.infradead.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm: introduce memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} API
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:22:14 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170306132214.1769368301d9e671e1bc68be@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170306131408.9828-5-mhocko@kernel.org>
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:14:05 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>
> GFP_NOFS context is used for the following 5 reasons currently
> - to prevent from deadlocks when the lock held by the allocation
> context would be needed during the memory reclaim
> - to prevent from stack overflows during the reclaim because
> the allocation is performed from a deep context already
> - to prevent lockups when the allocation context depends on
> other reclaimers to make a forward progress indirectly
> - just in case because this would be safe from the fs POV
> - silence lockdep false positives
>
> Unfortunately overuse of this allocation context brings some problems
> to the MM. Memory reclaim is much weaker (especially during heavy FS
> metadata workloads), OOM killer cannot be invoked because the MM layer
> doesn't have enough information about how much memory is freeable by the
> FS layer.
>
> In many cases it is far from clear why the weaker context is even used
> and so it might be used unnecessarily. We would like to get rid of
> those as much as possible. One way to do that is to use the flag in
> scopes rather than isolated cases. Such a scope is declared when really
> necessary, tracked per task and all the allocation requests from within
> the context will simply inherit the GFP_NOFS semantic.
>
> Not only this is easier to understand and maintain because there are
> much less problematic contexts than specific allocation requests, this
> also helps code paths where FS layer interacts with other layers (e.g.
> crypto, security modules, MM etc...) and there is no easy way to convey
> the allocation context between the layers.
>
> Introduce memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} API to control the scope
> of GFP_NOFS allocation context. This is basically copying
> memalloc_noio_{save,restore} API we have for other restricted allocation
> context GFP_NOIO. The PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS flag already exists and it is
> just an alias for PF_FSTRANS which has been xfs specific until recently.
> There are no more PF_FSTRANS users anymore so let's just drop it.
>
> PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS is now checked in the MM layer and drops __GFP_FS
> implicitly same as PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO drops __GFP_IO. memalloc_noio_flags
> is renamed to current_gfp_context because it now cares about both
> PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS and PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO contexts. Xfs code paths preserve
> their semantic. kmem_flags_convert() doesn't need to evaluate the flag
> anymore.
>
> This patch shouldn't introduce any functional changes.
>
> Let's hope that filesystems will drop direct GFP_NOFS (resp. ~__GFP_FS)
> usage as much as possible and only use a properly documented
> memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} checkpoints where they are appropriate.
>
> ....
>
> --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> @@ -210,8 +210,16 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> *
> * GFP_NOIO will use direct reclaim to discard clean pages or slab pages
> * that do not require the starting of any physical IO.
> + * Please try to avoid using this flag directly and instead use
> + * memalloc_noio_{save,restore} to mark the whole scope which cannot
> + * perform any IO with a short explanation why. All allocation requests
> + * will inherit GFP_NOIO implicitly.
> *
> * GFP_NOFS will use direct reclaim but will not use any filesystem interfaces.
> + * Please try to avoid using this flag directly and instead use
> + * memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} to mark the whole scope which cannot/shouldn't
> + * recurse into the FS layer with a short explanation why. All allocation
> + * requests will inherit GFP_NOFS implicitly.
I wonder if these are worth a checkpatch rule.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-06 22:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-06 13:14 [PATCH 0/7 v5] scope GFP_NOFS api Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 13:14 ` [PATCH 1/7] lockdep: teach lockdep about memalloc_noio_save Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 13:14 ` [PATCH 2/7] lockdep: allow to disable reclaim lockup detection Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 13:14 ` [PATCH 3/7] xfs: abstract PF_FSTRANS to PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 13:14 ` [PATCH 4/7] mm: introduce memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} API Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 21:22 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2017-03-07 15:09 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-09 11:42 ` David Sterba
2017-03-06 13:14 ` [PATCH 5/7] xfs: use memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} instead of memalloc_noio* Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 13:14 ` [PATCH 6/7] jbd2: mark the transaction context with the scope GFP_NOFS context Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 13:14 ` [PATCH 7/7] jbd2: make the whole kjournald2 kthread NOFS safe 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=20170306132214.1769368301d9e671e1bc68be@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=cluster-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-afs@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=logfs@logfs.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--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 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).