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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 137A8C433DF for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:36:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEECC20675 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:36:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726526AbgHMQgU (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:36:20 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49638 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726249AbgHMQgT (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:36:19 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E3DAD78; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:36:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 18:36:17 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Uladzislau Rezki Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , Thomas Gleixner , 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: <20200813163617.GS9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <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> <20200813162047.GA27774@pc636> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200813162047.GA27774@pc636> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 13-08-20 18:20:47, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > 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? That would change the semantic for GFP_NOWAIT users who decided to drop __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM or even use 0 gfp mask right away, right? The point I am trying to make is that an alias is good for RT because it doesn't have any users (because there is no RT atomic user of the allocator) currently. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs