From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
"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 1/2] mm: Add __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 11:18:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200811091807.GA2634@pc636> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200810192525.GG4773@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 09:25:25PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 10-08-20 18:07:39, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > On Sun 09-08-20 22:43:53, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Limitations and concerns (Main part)
> > > > ====================================
> > > > The current memmory-allocation interface presents to following
> > > > difficulties that this patch is designed to overcome:
> > > >
> > > > a) If built with CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING, the lockdep will
> > > > complain about violation("BUG: Invalid wait context") of the
> > > > nesting rules. It does the raw_spinlock vs. spinlock nesting
> > > > checks, i.e. it is not legal to acquire a spinlock_t while
> > > > holding a raw_spinlock_t.
> > > >
> > > > Internally the kfree_rcu() uses raw_spinlock_t(in rcu-dev branch)
> > > > whereas the "page allocator" internally deals with spinlock_t to
> > > > access to its zones. The code also can be broken from higher level
> > > > of view:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > raw_spin_lock(&some_lock);
> > > > kfree_rcu(some_pointer, some_field_offset);
> > > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Is there any fundamental problem to make zone raw_spin_lock?
> > >
> > Good point. Converting a regular spinlock to the raw_* variant can solve
> > an issue and to me it seems partly reasonable. Because there are other
> > questions if we do it:
> >
> > a) what to do with kswapd and "wake-up path" that uses sleepable lock:
> > wakeup_kswapd() -> wake_up_interruptible(&pgdat->kswapd_wait).
>
> If there is no RT friendly variant for waking up process from the atomic
> context then we might need to special case this for the RT tree.
>
I do not see it in RT kernel. The waiting primitives, see the wait.c,
use sleepable locks all over the file.
> > b) How RT people reacts on it? I guess they will no be happy.
>
> zone->lock should be held for a very limited amount of time.
>
> > As i described before, calling the __get_free_page(0) with 0 as argument
> > will solve the (a). How correctly is it? From my point of view the logic
> > that bypass the wakeup path should be explicitly defined.
>
> gfp_mask == 0 is GFP_NOWAIT (aka an atomic allocation request) which
> doesn't wake up kswapd. So if the wakeup is a problem then this would be
> a way to go.
>
What do you mean Michal? gfp_mask 0 != GFP_NOWAIT:
#define GFP_NOWAIT (__GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM)
it does wakeup of the kswapd. Or am i missing something? Please comment.
If we are about to avoid the kswapd, should we define something special?
#define GFP_NOWWAKE_KSWAPD 0
> > Or we can enter the allocator with (__GFP_HIGH|__GFP_ATOMIC) that bypass
> > the __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM as well.
>
> This would be an alternative which consumes memory reserves. Is this
> really needed for the particular case?
>
No. That was just another example illustrating how to bypass the
__GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM.
> >
> > Any thoughts here? Please comment.
> >
> > Having proposed flag will not heart RT latency and solve all concerns.
> >
> > > > b) If built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT. Please note, in that case spinlock_t
> > > > is converted into sleepable variant. Invoking the page allocator from
> > > > atomic contexts leads to "BUG: scheduling while atomic".
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > Proposal
> > > > ========
> > > > 1) Make GFP_* that ensures that the allocator returns NULL rather
> > > > than acquire its own spinlock_t. Having such flag will address a and b
> > > > limitations described above. It will also make the kfree_rcu() code
> > > > common for RT and regular kernel, more clean, less handling corner
> > > > cases and reduce the code size.
> > >
> > > I do not think this is a good idea. Single purpose gfp flags that tend
> > > to heavily depend on the current implementation of the page allocator
> > > have turned out to be problematic. Users used to misunderstand their
> > > meaning resulting in a lot of abuse which was not trivial to remove.
> > > This flag seem to fall into exactly this sort of category. If there is a
> > > problem in nesting then that should be addressed rather than a new flag
> > > exported IMHO. If that is absolutely not possible for some reason then
> > > we can try to figure out what to do but that really need a very strong
> > > justification.
> > >
> > The problem that i see is we can not use the page allocator from atomic
> > contexts, what is our case:
> >
> > <snip>
> > local_irq_save(flags) or preempt_disable() or raw_spinlock();
> > __get_free_page(GFP_ATOMIC);
> > <snip>
> >
> > So if we can convert the page allocator to raw_* lock it will be appreciated,
> > at least from our side, IMHO, not from RT one. But as i stated above we need
> > to sort raised questions out if converting is done.
> >
> > What is your view?
>
> To me it would make more sense to support atomic allocations also for
> the RT tree. Having both GFP_NOWAIT and GFP_ATOMIC which do not really
> work for atomic context in RT sounds subtle and wrong.
>
Same view on it.
Thank you for your comments!
--
Vlad Rezki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-11 9:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 111+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-09 20:43 [RFC-PATCH 0/2] __GFP_NO_LOCKS Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2020-08-09 20:43 ` [RFC-PATCH 1/2] mm: Add __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2020-08-10 12:31 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-10 16:07 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-10 19:25 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-11 8:19 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-11 9:37 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-11 9:42 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-11 10:28 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-11 10:45 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-11 10:26 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-11 11:33 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-11 9:18 ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
2020-08-11 10:21 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-11 11:10 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-11 14:44 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-11 15:22 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-12 11:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-12 12:01 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-13 7:18 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-11 15:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-11 15:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-11 15:56 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-08-11 16:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-11 16:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-11 19:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-11 21:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-12 0:13 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-12 4:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-12 8:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-12 13:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-13 7:50 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-13 9:58 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-13 11:15 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-13 13:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-13 13:45 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-13 14:32 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-08-13 16:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-13 16:22 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-08-13 13:22 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-13 13:33 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-13 14:34 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-13 14:53 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-13 15:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-13 15:54 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-13 16:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-13 16:13 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-13 16:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-13 17:12 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-13 17:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-13 18:31 ` peterz
2020-08-13 19:13 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-13 16:20 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-13 16:36 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-14 11:54 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-13 17:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-13 17:22 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-14 7:17 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-14 12:15 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-14 12:48 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-14 13:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-14 14:06 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-14 18:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-14 23:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-14 23:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-15 0:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-15 3:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-15 8:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-08-15 13:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-15 8:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-08-15 14:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-15 14:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-17 8:47 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-13 18:26 ` peterz
2020-08-13 18:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-13 22:06 ` peterz
2020-08-13 23:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-13 23:59 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-14 8:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-08-14 10:23 ` peterz
2020-08-14 15:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-14 14:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-14 16:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-14 17:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-08-14 18:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-14 19:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-14 20:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-14 21:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-08-14 23:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-14 23:40 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-16 22:56 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-17 8:28 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-17 10:36 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-17 22:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-18 7:43 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-18 13:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-18 14:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-18 16:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-18 16:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-18 17:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-18 23:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-08-19 23:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-18 15:02 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-18 15:45 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-18 16:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-14 16:19 ` peterz
2020-08-14 18:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-13 13:29 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-13 13:41 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-13 14:22 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-08-09 20:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] rcu/tree: use " Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
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=20200811091807.GA2634@pc636 \
--to=urezki@gmail.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=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--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).