From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A38C4727D for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:41:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26402075A for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:41:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="siWcipuH" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F26402075A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 917E28E0005; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 11:41:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 8A00B8E0001; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 11:41:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 78FC78E0005; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 11:41:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0127.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.127]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 429BB8E0001 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 11:41:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin21.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1A31EE6 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:41:03 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77338285206.21.bat75_59149ea271bf Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin21.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BB6180442C3 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:41:03 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: bat75_59149ea271bf X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6258 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:41:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1601912461; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=oW1Tkgb2hG9B9FfQz5daexKC4SibgqnT1L43hD3UHvA=; b=siWcipuHhenmrJBe4dP6lR4NDNs/vxNjersBOj8MtQm9jwo9L0ltIzZVEMnkDEO1X3mtCV FwXv52jXmCS14xyXh6vwDL6FIT4gWiOKYSXWCoSbV0//9VHVe7cwUSl7vpuS2H+PaMMhOR Yc03c3LV4OTJWB0l30q/7R9oyu4M2RE= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 942C8AC97; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:41:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 17:41:00 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Uladzislau Rezki Cc: Mel Gorman , Vlastimil Babka , LKML , RCU , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , "Paul E . McKenney" , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , "Theodore Y . Ts'o" , Joel Fernandes , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Oleksiy Avramchenko Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 2/4] mm: Add __rcu_alloc_page_lockless() func. Message-ID: <20201005154100.GF4555@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200918194817.48921-1-urezki@gmail.com> <20200918194817.48921-3-urezki@gmail.com> <38f42ca1-ffcd-04a6-bf11-618deffa897a@suse.cz> <20200929220742.GB8768@pc636> <795d6aea-1846-6e08-ac1b-dbff82dd7133@suse.cz> <20201001192626.GA29606@pc636> <20201002071123.GB20872@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20201002085014.GC3227@techsingularity.net> <20201002090507.GB4555@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20201005150801.GC17959@pc636> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201005150801.GC17959@pc636> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon 05-10-20 17:08:01, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 11:05:07AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 02-10-20 09:50:14, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 09:11:23AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Thu 01-10-20 21:26:26, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I meant going back to idea of new gfp flag, but adjust the implementation in > > > > > > the allocator (different from what you posted in previous version) so that it > > > > > > only looks at the flag after it tries to allocate from pcplist and finds out > > > > > > it's empty. So, no inventing of new page allocator entry points or checks such > > > > > > as the one you wrote above, but adding the new gfp flag in a way that it doesn't > > > > > > affect existing fast paths. > > > > > > > > > > > OK. Now i see. Please have a look below at the patch, so we fully understand > > > > > each other. If that is something that is close to your view or not: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h > > > > > index c603237e006c..7e613560a502 100644 > > > > > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h > > > > > @@ -39,8 +39,9 @@ struct vm_area_struct; > > > > > #define ___GFP_HARDWALL 0x100000u > > > > > #define ___GFP_THISNODE 0x200000u > > > > > #define ___GFP_ACCOUNT 0x400000u > > > > > +#define ___GFP_NO_LOCKS 0x800000u > > > > > > > > Even if a new gfp flag gains a sufficient traction and support I am > > > > _strongly_ opposed against consuming another flag for that. Bit space is > > > > limited. > > > > > > That is definitely true. I'm not happy with the GFP flag at all, the > > > comment is at best a damage limiting move. It still would be better for > > > a memory pool to be reserved and sized for critical allocations. > > > > Completely agreed. The only existing usecase is so special cased that a > > dedicated pool is not only easier to maintain but it should be also much > > better tuned for the specific workload. Something not really feasible > > with the allocator. > > > > > > Besides that we certainly do not want to allow craziness like > > > > __GFP_NO_LOCK | __GFP_RECLAIM (and similar), do we? > > > > > > That would deserve to be taken to a dumpster and set on fire. The flag > > > combination could be checked in the allocator but the allocator path fast > > > paths are bad enough already. > > > > If a new allocation/gfp mode is absolutely necessary then I believe that > > the most reasoanble way forward would be > > #define GFP_NO_LOCK ((__force gfp_t)0) > > > Agree. Even though i see that some code should be adjusted for it. There are > a few users of the __get_free_page(0); So, need to double check it: Yes, I believe I have pointed that out in the previous discussion. > > [ 0.650351] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000010 > [ 0.651083] #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode > [ 0.651639] #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page > [ 0.652200] PGD 0 P4D 0 > [ 0.652523] Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI > [ 0.652668] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.9.0-rc7-next-20200930+ #140 > [ 0.652668] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.12.0-1 04/01/2014 > [ 0.652668] RIP: 0010:__find_event_file+0x21/0x80 > > > Apart of that. There is a post_alloc_hook(), that gets called from the prep_new_page(). > If "debug page alloc enabled", it maps a page for debug purposes invoking kernel_map_pages(). > __kernel_map_pages() is ARCH specific. For example, powerpc variant uses sleep-able locks > what can be easily converted to raw variant. Yes, there are likely more surprises like that. I am not sure about kasan, page owner (which depens on the stack unwinder) and others which hook into this path. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs