Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dax: masking off __GFP_FS in fs DAX handlers

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 08:53:02PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sat 17-12-16 09:04:50, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:19:16AM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:07:30PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:40:41PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
> > > > > The caller into dax needs to clear __GFP_FS mask bit since it's
> > > > > responsible for acquiring locks / transactions that blocks __GFP_FS
> > > > > allocation.  The caller will restore the original mask when dax function
> > > > > returns.
> > > > 
> > > > What's the allocation problem you're working around here? Can you
> > > > please describe the call chain that is the problem?
> > > > 
> > > > >  	xfs_ilock(XFS_I(inode), XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED);
> > > > >  
> > > > >  	if (IS_DAX(inode)) {
> > > > > +		gfp_t old_gfp = vmf->gfp_mask;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +		vmf->gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_FS;
> > > > >  		ret = dax_iomap_fault(vma, vmf, &xfs_iomap_ops);
> > > > > +		vmf->gfp_mask = old_gfp;
> > > > 
> > > > I really have to say that I hate code that clears and restores flags
> > > > without any explanation of why the code needs to play flag tricks. I
> > > > take one look at the XFS fault handling code and ask myself now "why
> > > > the hell do we need to clear those flags?" Especially as the other
> > > > paths into generic fault handlers /don't/ require us to do this.
> > > > What does DAX do that require us to treat memory allocation contexts
> > > > differently to the filemap_fault() path?
> > > 
> > > This was done in response to Jan Kara's concern:
> > > 
> > >   The gfp_mask that propagates from __do_fault() or do_page_mkwrite() is fine
> > >   because at that point it is correct. But once we grab filesystem locks which
> > >   are not reclaim safe, we should update vmf->gfp_mask we pass further down
> > >   into DAX code to not contain __GFP_FS (that's a bug we apparently have
> > >   there). And inside DAX code, we definitely are not generally safe to add
> > >   __GFP_FS to mapping_gfp_mask(). Maybe we'd be better off propagating struct
> > >   vm_fault into this function, using passed gfp_mask there and make sure
> > >   callers update gfp_mask as appropriate.
> > > 
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/37
> > > 
> > > IIUC I think the concern is that, for example, in xfs_filemap_page_mkwrite()
> > > we take a read lock on the struct inode.i_rwsem before we call
> > > dax_iomap_fault().
> > 
> > That, my friends, is exactly the problem that mapping_gfp_mask() is
> > meant to solve. This:
> > 
> > > > > +	vmf.gfp_mask = mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) | __GFP_FS |  __GFP_IO;
> > 
> > Is just so wrong it's not funny.
> 
> You mean like in mm/memory.c: __get_fault_gfp_mask()?
> 
> Which was introduced by commit c20cd45eb017 "mm: allow GFP_{FS,IO} for
> page_cache_read page cache allocation" by Michal (added to CC) and you were
> even on CC ;).

Sure, I was on the cc list, but that doesn't mean I /liked/ the
patch. It also doesn't mean I had the time or patience to argue
whether it was the right way to address whatever whacky OOM/reclaim
deficiency was being reported....

Oh, and this is a write fault, not a read fault. There's a big
difference in filesystem behaviour between those two types of
faults, so what might be fine for a page cache read (i.e. no
transactions) isn't necessarily correct for a write operation...

> The code here was replicating __get_fault_gfp_mask() and in fact the idea
> of the cleanup is to get rid of this code and take whatever is in
> vmf.gfp_mask and mask off __GFP_FS in the filesystem if it deems it is
> needed (e.g. ext4 really needs this as inode reclaim is depending on being
> able to force a transaction commit).

And so now we add a flag to the fault that the filesystem says not
to add to mapping masks, and now the filesystem has to mask off
thati flag /again/ because it's mapping gfp mask guidelines are
essentially being ignored.

Remind me again why we even have the mapping gfp_mask if we just
ignore it like this?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm