linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
To: DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: "Intel Graphics Development" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Dave Chinner" <david@fromorbit.com>, "Qian Cai" <cai@lca.pw>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
	"Thomas Hellström" <thomas_os@shipmail.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@mellanox.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH 03/65] mm: Track mmu notifiers in fs_reclaim_acquire/release
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 14:21:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201023122216.2373294-3-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201023122216.2373294-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

fs_reclaim_acquire/release nicely catch recursion issues when
allocating GFP_KERNEL memory against shrinkers (which gpu drivers tend
to use to keep the excessive caches in check). For mmu notifier
recursions we do have lockdep annotations since 23b68395c7c7
("mm/mmu_notifiers: add a lockdep map for invalidate_range_start/end").

But these only fire if a path actually results in some pte
invalidation - for most small allocations that's very rarely the case.
The other trouble is that pte invalidation can happen any time when
__GFP_RECLAIM is set. Which means only really GFP_ATOMIC is a safe
choice, GFP_NOIO isn't good enough to avoid potential mmu notifier
recursion.

I was pondering whether we should just do the general annotation, but
there's always the risk for false positives. Plus I'm assuming that
the core fs and io code is a lot better reviewed and tested than
random mmu notifier code in drivers. Hence why I decide to only
annotate for that specific case.

Furthermore even if we'd create a lockdep map for direct reclaim, we'd
still need to explicit pull in the mmu notifier map - there's a lot
more places that do pte invalidation than just direct reclaim, these
two contexts arent the same.

Note that the mmu notifiers needing their own independent lockdep map
is also the reason we can't hold them from fs_reclaim_acquire to
fs_reclaim_release - it would nest with the acquistion in the pte
invalidation code, causing a lockdep splat. And we can't remove the
annotations from pte invalidation and all the other places since
they're called from many other places than page reclaim. Hence we can
only do the equivalent of might_lock, but on the raw lockdep map.

With this we can also remove the lockdep priming added in 66204f1d2d1b
("mm/mmu_notifiers: prime lockdep") since the new annotations are
strictly more powerful.

v2: Review from Thomas Hellstrom:
- unbotch the fs_reclaim context check, I accidentally inverted it,
  but it didn't blow up because I inverted it immediately
- fix compiling for !CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER

v3: Unbreak the PF_MEMALLOC_ context flags. Thanks to Qian for the
report and Dave for explaining what I failed to see.

Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Thomas Hellström (Intel) <thomas_os@shipmail.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
---
 mm/mmu_notifier.c |  7 -------
 mm/page_alloc.c   | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
index 4fc918163dd3..6bf798373eb0 100644
--- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
+++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
@@ -612,13 +612,6 @@ int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *subscription,
 	mmap_assert_write_locked(mm);
 	BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 0);
 
-	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)) {
-		fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
-		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
-		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
-		fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
-	}
-
 	if (!mm->notifier_subscriptions) {
 		/*
 		 * kmalloc cannot be called under mm_take_all_locks(), but we
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 780c8f023b28..2edd3fd447fa 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -57,6 +57,7 @@
 #include <trace/events/oom.h>
 #include <linux/prefetch.h>
 #include <linux/mm_inline.h>
+#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
 #include <linux/migrate.h>
 #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
 #include <linux/sched/rt.h>
@@ -4207,10 +4208,8 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_fla
 static struct lockdep_map __fs_reclaim_map =
 	STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT("fs_reclaim", &__fs_reclaim_map);
 
-static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
+static bool __need_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
-	gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask);
-
 	/* no reclaim without waiting on it */
 	if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM))
 		return false;
@@ -4219,10 +4218,6 @@ static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 	if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
 		return false;
 
-	/* We're only interested __GFP_FS allocations for now */
-	if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
-		return false;
-
 	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOLOCKDEP)
 		return false;
 
@@ -4241,15 +4236,29 @@ void __fs_reclaim_release(void)
 
 void fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
-	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
-		__fs_reclaim_acquire();
+	gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask);
+
+	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
+		if (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)
+			__fs_reclaim_acquire();
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER
+		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
+		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
+#endif
+
+	}
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_acquire);
 
 void fs_reclaim_release(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
-	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
-		__fs_reclaim_release();
+	gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask);
+
+	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
+		if (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)
+			__fs_reclaim_release();
+	}
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_release);
 #endif
-- 
2.28.0



       reply	other threads:[~2020-10-23 12:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20201021163242.1458885-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
     [not found] ` <20201023122216.2373294-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
2020-10-23 12:21   ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
2020-10-27 18:51     ` [PATCH 03/65] mm: Track mmu notifiers in fs_reclaim_acquire/release Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-27 19:01       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 04/65] mm: Extract might_alloc() debug check Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 14:14     ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-10-23 14:16     ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-10-23 14:37       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 14:45         ` Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 20:53     ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 29/65] s390/pci: Remove races against pte updates Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:26     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 30/65] drm/exynos: Stop using frame_vector helpers Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 31/65] drm/exynos: Use FOLL_LONGTERM for g2d cmdlists Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 32/65] misc/habana: Stop using frame_vector helpers Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 33/65] misc/habana: Use FOLL_LONGTERM for userptr Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 34/65] mm/frame-vector: Use FOLL_LONGTERM Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 35/65] media: videobuf2: Move frame_vector into media subsystem Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 36/65] mm: Close race in generic_access_phys Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 37/65] mm: Add unsafe_follow_pfn Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 38/65] media/videbuf1|2: Mark follow_pfn usage as unsafe Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 39/65] vfio/type1: Mark follow_pfn " Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 40/65] PCI: Obey iomem restrictions for procfs mmap Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 41/65] /dev/mem: Only set filp->f_mapping Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 42/65] resource: Move devmem revoke code to resource framework Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 43/65] sysfs: Support zapping of binary attr mmaps Daniel Vetter
2020-10-23 12:21   ` [PATCH 44/65] PCI: Revoke mappings like devmem Daniel Vetter

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=20201023122216.2373294-3-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --to=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cai@lca.pw \
    --cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jgg@mellanox.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=thomas_os@shipmail.org \
    /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).