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=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 E8F61C41604 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 22:25:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D0E215A4 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 22:25:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="K8s0q6Fi" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 48D0E215A4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 40F7C6B005C; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 18:25:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 39AD96B005D; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 18:25:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1EBEA6B0062; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 18:25:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0142.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.142]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3CA16B005C for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 18:25:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB131EE6 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 22:25:35 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77342933430.03.sink93_3811516271ca Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF0028A4E8 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 22:25:35 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: sink93_3811516271ca X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 8520 Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com (mail-lj1-f194.google.com [209.85.208.194]) by imf45.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 22:25:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-f194.google.com with SMTP id a5so6982990ljj.11 for ; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 15:25:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=CwlririWHZLoZdSnClXuBylgfX10VlZNUUDjjqRPH8Y=; b=K8s0q6FiXm8ncAkkprgogRpRWDcz8WanTr/6863AUv99KWFKzQ6Jz3h5xQqd7VK4qy x28V8o9qi5J9SVkBoodsl6fhjW1GJmms5iL9zDvYiEO5p0NA/a/dD/ppCdcwYD6ChgWt LgCqDnOFd86/eUuE2DYbbyUR5sGkgSadXbc0VPqUnUafxWC4mNO2csDlAxFRcUeT7pj0 rET2LItGU+dBcSQXsv9mgd4hWkPF+oErb8rpXsaOL0ZxY/T2rEHjKO1wvQo/esmMHQLK 8T3jc5azAOvZtfeR7yJ9XBGr1CX9uf6tJuiygrvFaUOHz/g07U/1edbCOXmQ6AKzvDti YKRg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=CwlririWHZLoZdSnClXuBylgfX10VlZNUUDjjqRPH8Y=; b=rt+E5sUskjn7XNXggca6gly5H7l1M1tVc+Hw7RO0/T7kq7RHdzAU9labl3+Vcs0Obc XI2RbN/hI42ViQfH7NlfBvc2EYyyUUuOWTnv+mykqR+4u68JpMGNmDP+T/ItfQhDjiP4 ppSTEvpYtt2c8VgxUzQ8rF9u0KLpUG3YgMG7xceVjMe38VnbLp5rOH3QAYEYVX+rq7QN shOaHl0lGqre05lJW+dqkPk5N4TwpHfyVVZ0kTC4AHgmsmw/lMTinoNDLew3EMYrghNN FKKRMA5UwR/KOLH4AwbjNOgkjyZEwg7lditNgCyNIf8K7vS3OMTkOEvVJ2XV5rpDe/Xz kMLg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531k9X5S4LbAXoHyNN/jlgfNPy6w07dQrSLo8VlOK8eSkVVhnwhM w6ypVM71xf464YfeIPdAvXU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwcH6GTy52nMblWOnp5gn/2rSD5SlbUcIT54OGQFm9eNSEmZPClVuuQ+kngPYBDaLhJRLW2XQ== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b055:: with SMTP id d21mr64789ljl.244.1602023133000; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 15:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc636 (h5ef52e31.seluork.dyn.perspektivbredband.net. [94.245.46.49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l188sm43120lfd.127.2020.10.06.15.25.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 06 Oct 2020 15:25:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 00:25:29 +0200 To: Michal Hocko Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , 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: <20201006222529.GA23612@pc636> References: <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> <20201005154100.GF4555@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201005154100.GF4555@dhcp22.suse.cz> 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, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:41:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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. > OK. I spent more time on it. A passed gfp_mask can be adjusted on the entry, that adjustment depends on the gfp_allowed_mask. It can be changed in run-time. For example during early boot it excludes: __GFP_RECLAIM|__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS flags, what is GFP_KERNEL. So, GFP_KERNEL is adjusted on entry and becomes 0 during early boot phase. How to distinguish it: + /* + * gfp_mask can become zero because gfp_allowed_mask changes in run-time. + */ + if (!gfp_mask) + alloc_flags |= ALLOC_NO_LOCKS; + gfp_mask &= gfp_allowed_mask; alloc_mask = gfp_mask; if (!prepare_alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, preferred_nid, nodemask, &ac, &alloc_mask, &alloc_flags)) > > > > 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. > I have checked kasan_alloc_pages(), kernel_poison_pages() both are OK, at least i did not find any locking there. As for set_page_owner(), it requires more attention, since it uses arch specific unwind logic. Though, i spent some time on it and so far have not noticed anything. -- Vlad Rezki