From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DEA5C433E3 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:20:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E3720855 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:20:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="QOWRTRjt" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726253AbgHMQUy (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:20:54 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59608 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726167AbgHMQUw (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:20:52 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x143.google.com (mail-lf1-x143.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::143]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5410DC061757; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x143.google.com with SMTP id x24so3323862lfe.11; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:20:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=XLc5ACtHDNI1+gaIDyPYbQaiPo0Jso/dYMhGyI7vp20=; b=QOWRTRjtg3u/3Wy+Kci93qh6P1EtMgRTSJnljlmP5tCtpuKTbaP/KkxpbpkRJVUH2r wWwUiEV3agQ7JS3NSSyDaJ+v5KqA3mu37NuamXUkYObMW1QSwReaQt9em8AGO893lrKn sl3lJCvF+FqrVVcBnyZVydN+43YmNz5ALtc3LeMEB31Hke+sV9jyrEKRyC64edBubM7O LyDllvTMJSkWOE9boDmbhnWx0LEBX+XL7z/eA0xLTAqvPACKd8PuxWTHRxlpKqUwTez1 u/Qm5Zrg2zaDNZPrKPZF3QwakhLx05Ol1S70gxzc4DLJslZ7wmxihAswcn09yBOgQFk0 5+OQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=XLc5ACtHDNI1+gaIDyPYbQaiPo0Jso/dYMhGyI7vp20=; b=uaX98mtB4BqiwVPWQJMPqQhApBpMY84tlI6V9sV/aLAzi0A8Ql0jULkZxmh73RTDap YTW9nKp6HteV8g3GWp8oxJ8LQOALW96NZ4dVspjArL83b/MYJvKuGy5Rj8RMps1v4t73 OtYHN+gC2/ovQuje+xzLQwd0Zai6qn3HAGo6NOIWjmCvB+Ipm67gsepQC9JAH/kCnfGm etxlWScAJAJez28ecEKQhO8R8FHm+PwuOdILthZNQz+GcoQEMjza6Fequ3dztYY/BxP0 yq8VtTXr3Qe/66sb/7CAJ+QhNgoNMiJizRouchyU0KBU6AZK/2I7lje5kraUMjZiB4Xk OKXA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5330gJhChf22otzvMmtjMOYAA+3Eje5GCl1e3zLnmBfco1+ybjrf v3+/AgLrm/ufvCXq7cb7DXQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzYsq0GidJ/ACXDbFMvNq6cm4z8BzXzaeTaI8v0eg6CSLvXG55dQ/8r6+vGOhgNg/9IsAvLug== X-Received: by 2002:a19:c806:: with SMTP id y6mr2661386lff.156.1597335650761; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc636 (h5ef52e31.seluork.dyn.perspektivbredband.net. [94.245.46.49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r19sm1190460ljc.59.2020.08.13.09.20.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:20:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 18:20:47 +0200 To: Michal Hocko Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , Thomas Gleixner , Uladzislau Rezki , LKML , RCU , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Matthew Wilcox , "Theodore Y . Ts'o" , Joel Fernandes , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Oleksiy Avramchenko , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 1/2] mm: Add __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag Message-ID: <20200813162047.GA27774@pc636> References: <20200811210931.GZ4295@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <874kp87mca.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200813075027.GD9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200813095840.GA25268@pc636> <874kp6llzb.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200813133308.GK9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87sgcqty0e.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200813145335.GN9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200813154159.GR4295@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200813155412.GP9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200813155412.GP9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: rcu-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org > On Thu 13-08-20 08:41:59, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 04:53:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 13-08-20 16:34:57, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > Michal Hocko writes: > > > > > On Thu 13-08-20 15:22:00, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > >> It basically requires to convert the wait queue to something else. Is > > > > >> the waitqueue strict single waiter? > > > > > > > > > > I would have to double check. From what I remember only kswapd should > > > > > ever sleep on it. > > > > > > > > That would make it trivial as we could simply switch it over to rcu_wait. > > > > > > > > >> So that should be: > > > > >> > > > > >> if (!preemptible() && gfp == GFP_RT_NOWAIT) > > > > >> > > > > >> which is limiting the damage to those callers which hand in > > > > >> GFP_RT_NOWAIT. > > > > >> > > > > >> lockdep will yell at invocations with gfp != GFP_RT_NOWAIT when it hits > > > > >> zone->lock in the wrong context. And we want to know about that so we > > > > >> can look at the caller and figure out how to solve it. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that would have to somehow need to annotate the zone_lock to be ok > > > > > in those paths so that lockdep doesn't complain. > > > > > > > > That opens the worst of all cans of worms. If we start this here then > > > > Joe programmer and his dog will use these lockdep annotation to evade > > > > warnings and when exposed to RT it will fall apart in pieces. Just that > > > > at that point Joe programmer moved on to something else and the usual > > > > suspects can mop up the pieces. We've seen that all over the place and > > > > some people even disable lockdep temporarily because annotations don't > > > > help. > > > > > > Hmm. I am likely missing something really important here. We have two > > > problems at hand: > > > 1) RT will become broken as soon as this new RCU functionality which > > > requires an allocation from inside of raw_spinlock hits the RT tree > > > 2) lockdep splats which are telling us that early because of the > > > raw_spinlock-> spin_lock dependency. > > > > That is a reasonable high-level summary. > > > > > 1) can be handled by handled by the bailing out whenever we have to use > > > zone->lock inside the buddy allocator - essentially even more strict > > > NOWAIT semantic than we have for RT tree - proposed (pseudo) patch is > > > trying to describe that. > > > > Unless I am missing something subtle, the problem with this approach > > is that in production-environment CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y kernels, there > > is no way at runtime to distinguish between holding a spinlock on the > > one hand and holding a raw spinlock on the other. Therefore, without > > some sort of indication from the caller, this approach will not make > > CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y users happy. > > If the whole bailout is guarded by CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT specific atomicity > check then there is no functional problem - GFP_RT_SAFE would still be > GFP_NOWAIT so functional wise the allocator will still do the right > thing. > > [...] > > > > That would require changing NOWAIT/ATOMIC allocations semantic quite > > > drastically for !RT kernels as well. I am not sure this is something we > > > can do. Or maybe I am just missing your point. > > > > Exactly, and avoiding changing this semantic for current users is > > precisely why we are proposing some sort of indication to be passed > > into the allocation request. In Uladzislau's patch, this was the > > __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag, but whatever works. > > As I've tried to explain already, I would really hope we can do without > any new gfp flags. We are running out of them and they tend to generate > a lot of maintenance burden. There is a lot of abuse etc. We should also > not expose such an implementation detail of the allocator to callers > because that would make future changes even harder. The alias, on the > othere hand already builds on top of existing NOWAIT semantic and it > just helps the allocator to complain about a wrong usage while it > doesn't expose any internals. > I know that Matthew and me raised it. We do can handle it without introducing any flag. I mean just use 0 as argument to the page_alloc(gfp_flags = 0) i.e. #define __GFP_NO_LOCKS 0 so it will be handled same way how it is done in the "mm: Add __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag" I can re-spin the RFC patch and send it out for better understanding. Does it work for you, Michal? Or it is better just to drop the patch here? -- Vlad Rezki