From: "NeilBrown" <neilb@suse.de>
To: "Dave Chinner" <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
"Andreas Dilger" <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org>,
"Mel Gorman" <mgorman@suse.com>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] XFS: remove congestion_wait() loop from xfs_buf_alloc_pages()
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 12:35:59 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <163158695921.3992.9776900395549582360@noble.neil.brown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210914020837.GH2361455@dread.disaster.area>
On Tue, 14 Sep 2021, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 10:13:04AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > Documentation commment in gfp.h discourages indefinite retry loops on
> > ENOMEM and says of __GFP_NOFAIL that it
> >
> > is definitely preferable to use the flag rather than opencode
> > endless loop around allocator.
> >
> > congestion_wait() is indistinguishable from
> > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() in practice and it is not a good way
> > to wait for memory to become available.
> >
> > So instead of waiting, allocate a single page using __GFP_NOFAIL, then
> > loop around and try to get any more pages that might be needed with a
> > bulk allocation. This single-page allocation will wait in the most
> > appropriate way.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > index 5fa6cd947dd4..1ae3768f6504 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > @@ -372,8 +372,8 @@ xfs_buf_alloc_pages(
> >
> > /*
> > * Bulk filling of pages can take multiple calls. Not filling the entire
> > - * array is not an allocation failure, so don't back off if we get at
> > - * least one extra page.
> > + * array is not an allocation failure, so don't fail or fall back on
> > + * __GFP_NOFAIL if we get at least one extra page.
> > */
> > for (;;) {
> > long last = filled;
> > @@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ xfs_buf_alloc_pages(
> > }
> >
> > XFS_STATS_INC(bp->b_mount, xb_page_retries);
> > - congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ / 50);
> > + bp->b_pages[filled++] = alloc_page(gfp_mask | __GFP_NOFAIL);
>
> This smells wrong - the whole point of using the bulk page allocator
> in this loop is to avoid the costly individual calls to
> alloc_page().
>
> What we are implementing here fail-fast semantics for readahead and
> fail-never for everything else. If the bulk allocator fails to get
> a page from the fast path free lists, it already falls back to
> __alloc_pages(gfp, 0, ...) to allocate a single page. So AFAICT
> there's no need to add another call to alloc_page() because we can
> just do this instead:
>
> if (flags & XBF_READ_AHEAD)
> gfp_mask |= __GFP_NORETRY;
> else
> - gfp_mask |= GFP_NOFS;
> + gfp_mask |= GFP_NOFS | __GFP_NOFAIL;
>
> Which should make the __alloc_pages() call in
> alloc_pages_bulk_array() do a __GFP_NOFAIL allocation and hence
> provide the necessary never-fail guarantee that is needed here.
That is a nice simplification.
Mel Gorman told me
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/20210907153116.GJ3828@suse.com/
that alloc_pages_bulk ignores GFP_NOFAIL. I added that to the
documentation comment in an earlier patch.
I had a look at the code and cannot see how it would fail to allocate at
least one page. Maybe Mel can help....
NeilBrown
>
> At which point, the bulk allocation loop can be simplified because
> we can only fail bulk allocation for readahead, so something like:
>
> if (filled == bp->b_page_count) {
> XFS_STATS_INC(bp->b_mount, xb_page_found);
> break;
> }
>
> - if (filled != last)
> + if (filled == last) {
> - continue;
> -
> - if (flags & XBF_READ_AHEAD) {
> ASSERT(flags & XBF_READ_AHEAD);
> xfs_buf_free_pages(bp);
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
>
> XFS_STATS_INC(bp->b_mount, xb_page_retries);
> - congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ / 50);
> }
> return 0;
> }
>
> would do the right thing and still record that we are doing
> blocking allocations (via the xb_page_retries stat) in this loop.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-14 2:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-14 0:13 [PATCH 0/6] congestion_wait() and GFP_NOFAIL NeilBrown
2021-09-14 0:13 ` [PATCH 2/6] MM: annotate congestion_wait() and wait_iff_congested() as ineffective NeilBrown
2021-09-15 11:56 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-16 22:13 ` NeilBrown
2021-09-14 0:13 ` [PATCH 5/6] XFS: remove congestion_wait() loop from kmem_alloc() NeilBrown
2021-09-14 1:31 ` Dave Chinner
2021-09-14 3:27 ` NeilBrown
2021-09-14 6:05 ` Dave Chinner
2021-09-14 0:13 ` [PATCH 3/6] EXT4: Remove ENOMEM/congestion_wait() loops NeilBrown
2021-09-14 16:34 ` Mel Gorman
2021-09-14 21:48 ` NeilBrown
2021-09-15 12:06 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-15 22:35 ` NeilBrown
2021-09-16 0:37 ` Dave Chinner
2021-09-16 6:52 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-14 23:55 ` Dave Chinner
2021-09-15 8:59 ` Mel Gorman
2021-09-15 12:20 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-15 14:35 ` Mel Gorman
2021-09-15 22:38 ` Dave Chinner
2021-09-16 9:00 ` Mel Gorman
2021-09-15 0:28 ` Theodore Ts'o
2021-09-15 5:25 ` NeilBrown
2021-09-15 17:02 ` Theodore Ts'o
2021-09-14 0:13 ` [PATCH 1/6] MM: improve documentation for __GFP_NOFAIL NeilBrown
2021-09-15 11:51 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-14 0:13 ` [PATCH 6/6] XFS: remove congestion_wait() loop from xfs_buf_alloc_pages() NeilBrown
2021-09-14 2:08 ` Dave Chinner
2021-09-14 2:35 ` NeilBrown [this message]
2021-09-14 5:33 ` Dave Chinner
2021-09-14 16:45 ` Mel Gorman
2021-09-14 21:13 ` NeilBrown
2021-09-14 0:13 ` [PATCH 4/6] EXT4: remove congestion_wait from ext4_bio_write_page, and simplify NeilBrown
2021-09-17 2:56 [PATCH 0/6 v2] congestion_wait() and GFP_NOFAIL NeilBrown
2021-09-17 2:56 ` [PATCH 6/6] XFS: remove congestion_wait() loop from xfs_buf_alloc_pages() NeilBrown
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=163158695921.3992.9776900395549582360@noble.neil.brown.name \
--to=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=willy@infradead.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).