From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 2/4] mm: Add __rcu_alloc_page_lockless() func.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 12:02:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201007100234.GI29020@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201006222529.GA23612@pc636>
On Wed 07-10-20 00:25:29, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> 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:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > 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.
Honestly I am not sure how much is GFP_BOOT_MASK still needed. The
remaining user of gfp_allowed_mask mask should be only hibernation and I
believe this should be removed in long term. Not as trivial because
scope API cannot be used for that as it needs a global flag but this is
a gross hack that should be implemented differently. It is waiting on my
todo list but never got around to that.
> How to distinguish it:
>
> <snip>
> + /*
> + * 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))
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > 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.
stack depod depends on a lock IIRC. Anyway, this is just showing how
this is going to grow in complexity and make future additions harder.
A niche usecase is inducing an additional complexity for future
maintenance.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-07 10:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-18 19:48 [PATCH 0/4] kvfree_rcu() and _LOCK_NESTING/_PREEMPT_RT Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2020-09-18 19:48 ` [PATCH 1/4] rcu/tree: Add a work to allocate pages from regular context Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2020-09-18 19:48 ` [RFC-PATCH 2/4] mm: Add __rcu_alloc_page_lockless() func Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2020-09-21 7:47 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-21 15:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-21 16:03 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-21 19:48 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-22 7:50 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-22 13:12 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-22 15:35 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-23 10:37 ` Mel Gorman
2020-09-23 15:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-23 23:22 ` Mel Gorman
2020-09-24 8:16 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-24 11:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-24 15:16 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-24 11:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-24 15:21 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-25 8:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-25 10:25 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-24 15:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-25 8:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-26 14:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-25 8:05 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-25 15:31 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-25 15:47 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 16:25 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-30 9:27 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-30 12:35 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-30 12:44 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-30 13:39 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-30 16:46 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-30 20:36 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-30 15:25 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-09-30 16:48 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-30 17:03 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-09-30 17:22 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-30 17:48 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-09-25 16:17 ` Mel Gorman
2020-09-25 17:57 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-22 15:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-22 3:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-22 8:03 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-22 15:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-23 11:27 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-29 10:15 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-09-29 22:07 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-30 10:35 ` Michal Hocko
2020-10-01 19:32 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-30 14:39 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-09-30 15:37 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-10-01 19:26 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-10-02 7:11 ` Michal Hocko
2020-10-02 8:50 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-02 9:05 ` Michal Hocko
2020-10-05 15:08 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-10-05 15:41 ` Michal Hocko
2020-10-06 22:25 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-10-07 10:02 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2020-10-07 11:02 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-10-02 9:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-02 9:45 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-02 9:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-02 10:19 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-02 14:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-06 10:03 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-06 15:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-05 13:58 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-10-02 8:06 ` Mel Gorman
2020-10-05 14:12 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-18 19:48 ` [PATCH 3/4] rcu/tree: use " Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2020-09-18 19:48 ` [PATCH 4/4] rcu/tree: Use schedule_delayed_work() instead of WQ_HIGHPRI queue Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2020-09-20 15:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-21 13:27 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-18 22:15 ` [PATCH 0/4] kvfree_rcu() and _LOCK_NESTING/_PREEMPT_RT Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-30 15:52 ` Joel Fernandes
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=20201007100234.GI29020@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=urezki@gmail.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 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).