From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + mempool-fix-first-round-failure-behavior.patch added to -mm tree
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:39:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111222163900.GA1448@redhat.com> (raw)
Hello,
> For the initial allocation, mempool passes modified gfp mask to the
> backing allocator so that it doesn't try too hard when there are reserved
> elements waiting in the pool; however, when that allocation fails and pool
> is empty too, it either waits for the pool to be replenished before
> retrying or fails if !__GFP_WAIT.
>
> * If the caller was calling in with GFP_ATOMIC, it never gets to try
> emergency reserve. Allocations which would have succeeded without
> mempool may fail, which is just wrong.
>
> * Allocation which could have succeeded after a bit of reclaim now has
> to wait on the reserved items and it's not like mempool doesn't retry
> with the original gfp mask. It just does that *after* someone returns
> an element, pointlessly delaying things.
>
> Fix it by retrying immediately with the gfp mask requested by the caller
> if the first round of allocation attempts fails with modified mask.
I can't even explain why this (simple!) logic looks confusing to me,
with or without the patch. A couple of questions:
1. Why do we remove __GFP_WAIT unconditionally before the the
very 1st allocation?
2. Why do we always restore it after io_schedule(), even if
we have the reserved items?
IOW, what do you think about the patch below instead?
Oleg.
--- x/mm/mempool.c
+++ x/mm/mempool.c
@@ -212,10 +212,12 @@ void * mempool_alloc(mempool_t *pool, gf
gfp_mask |= __GFP_NORETRY; /* don't loop in __alloc_pages */
gfp_mask |= __GFP_NOWARN; /* failures are OK */
- gfp_temp = gfp_mask & ~(__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_IO);
-
repeat_alloc:
+ gfp_temp = gfp_mask;
+ if (pool->curr_nr)
+ gfp_temp &= ~(__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_IO);
+
element = pool->alloc(gfp_temp, pool->pool_data);
if (likely(element != NULL))
return element;
@@ -229,13 +231,15 @@ repeat_alloc:
}
/* We must not sleep in the GFP_ATOMIC case */
- if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT)) {
+ if (!(gfp_temp & __GFP_WAIT)) {
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pool->lock, flags);
+ /* raced with another mempool_alloc? */
+ if (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT)
+ goto repeat_alloc;
return NULL;
}
/* Let's wait for someone else to return an element to @pool */
- gfp_temp = gfp_mask;
init_wait(&wait);
prepare_to_wait(&pool->wait, &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
next reply other threads:[~2011-12-22 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-22 16:39 Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2011-12-22 16:49 ` + mempool-fix-first-round-failure-behavior.patch added to -mm tree Tejun Heo
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-12-22 0:33 akpm
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=20111222163900.GA1448@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.