From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@fb.com, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
mgorman@techsingularity.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
"Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/15] rcu/tree: Allocate a page when caller is preemptible
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 10:41:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200930084139.GN2277@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200930015327.GX29330@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
On Tue 29-09-20 18:53:27, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 02:07:56PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 28-09-20 16:31:01, paulmck@kernel.org wrote:
> > [...]
>
> Apologies for the delay, but today has not been boring.
>
> > > This commit therefore uses preemptible() to determine whether allocation
> > > is possible at all for double-argument kvfree_rcu().
> >
> > This deserves a comment. Because GFP_ATOMIC is possible for many
> > !preemptible() contexts. It is the raw_spin_lock, NMIs and likely few
> > others that are a problem. You are taking a conservative approach which
> > is fine but it would be good to articulate that explicitly.
>
> Good point, and so I have added the following as a header comment to
> the add_ptr_to_bulk_krc_lock() function:
>
> // Record ptr in a page managed by krcp, with the pre-krc_this_cpu_lock()
> // state specified by flags. If can_sleep is true, the caller must
> // be schedulable and not be holding any locks or mutexes that might be
> // acquired by the memory allocator or anything that it might invoke.
> // If !can_sleep, then if !preemptible() no allocation will be undertaken,
> // otherwise the allocation will use GFP_ATOMIC to avoid the remainder of
> // the aforementioned deadlock possibilities. Returns true iff ptr was
> // successfully recorded, else the caller must use a fallback.
OK, not trivial to follow but at least verbose enough to understand the
intention after some mulling. Definitely an improvement, thanks!
[...]
> > > -kvfree_call_rcu_add_ptr_to_bulk(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp, void *ptr)
> > > +add_ptr_to_bulk_krc_lock(struct kfree_rcu_cpu **krcp,
> > > + unsigned long *flags, void *ptr, bool can_sleep)
> > > {
> > > struct kvfree_rcu_bulk_data *bnode;
> > > + bool can_alloc_page = preemptible();
> > > + gfp_t gfp = (can_sleep ? GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL : GFP_ATOMIC) | __GFP_NOWARN;
> >
> > This is quite confusing IMHO. At least without a further explanation.
> > can_sleep is not as much about sleeping as it is about the reclaim
> > recursion AFAIU your changelog, right?
>
> No argument on it being confusing, and I hope that the added header
> comment helps. But specifically, can_sleep==true is a promise by the
> caller to be schedulable and not to be holding any lock/mutex/whatever
> that might possibly be acquired by the memory allocator or by anything
> else that the memory allocator might invoke, to your point, including
> for but one example the reclaim logic.
>
> The only way that can_sleep==true is if this function was invoked due
> to a call to single-argument kvfree_rcu(), which must be schedulable
> because its fallback is to invoke synchronize_rcu().
OK. I have to say that it is still not clear to me whether this call
path can be called from the memory reclaim context. If yes then you need
__GFP_NOMEMALLOC as well.
[...]
> > What is the point of calling kmalloc for a PAGE_SIZE object? Wouldn't
> > using the page allocator directly be better?
>
> Well, you guys gave me considerable heat about abusing internal allocator
> interfaces, and kmalloc() and kfree() seem to be about as non-internal
> as you can get and still be invoking the allocator. ;-)
alloc_pages resp. __get_free_pages is a normal page allocator interface
to use for page size granular allocations. kmalloc is for more fine
grained allocations.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-30 8:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-28 23:30 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/15] Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-28 23:30 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/15] lib/debug: Remove pointless ARCH_NO_PREEMPT dependencies paulmck
2020-09-28 23:30 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/15] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional paulmck
2020-09-28 23:30 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/15] preempt: Cleanup PREEMPT_COUNT leftovers paulmck
2020-09-28 23:30 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/15] lockdep: " paulmck
2020-09-28 23:30 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/15] mm/pagemap: " paulmck
2020-09-28 23:30 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/15] locking/bitspinlock: " paulmck
2020-09-28 23:30 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/15] uaccess: " paulmck
2020-09-28 23:30 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/15] sched: " paulmck
2020-09-28 23:30 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/15] ARM: " paulmck
2020-09-28 23:30 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/15] xtensa: " paulmck
2020-09-28 23:30 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/15] drm/i915: " paulmck
2020-10-01 7:17 ` Joonas Lahtinen
2020-10-01 8:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-01 16:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-28 23:30 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/15] rcutorture: " paulmck
2020-09-28 23:31 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/15] preempt: Remove PREEMPT_COUNT from Kconfig paulmck
2020-09-28 23:31 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/15] rcu/tree: Allocate a page when caller is preemptible paulmck
2020-09-29 12:07 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-30 1:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-30 8:41 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2020-09-30 12:31 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-30 23:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-01 9:02 ` Michal Hocko
2020-10-01 16:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-02 6:57 ` Michal Hocko
2020-10-02 14:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-01 16:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-01 20:03 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-28 23:31 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/15] kvfree_rcu(): Fix ifnullfree.cocci warnings paulmck
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=20200930084139.GN2277@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
/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).