From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: fdmanana@kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dennis@kernel.org, cl@linux.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: make pcpu_alloc() aware of current gfp context
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:54:37 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200430165437.GF5462@mtj.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200430164356.15543-1-fdmanana@kernel.org>
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 05:43:56PM +0100, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
>
> Since 5.7-rc1, on btrfs we have a percpu counter initialization for which
> we always pass a GFP_KERNEL gfp_t argument (this happens since commit
> 2992df73268f78 ("btrfs: Implement DREW lock")). That is safe in some
> contextes but not on others where allowing fs reclaim could lead to a
> deadlock because we are either holding some btrfs lock needed for a
> transaction commit or holding a btrfs transaction handle open. Because
> of that we surround the call to the function that initializes the percpu
> counter with a NOFS context using memalloc_nofs_save() (this is done at
> btrfs_init_fs_root()).
>
> However it turns out that this is not enough to prevent a possible
> deadlock because percpu_alloc() determines if it is in an atomic context
> by looking exclusively at the gfp flags passed to it (GFP_KERNEL in this
> case) and it is not aware that a NOFS context is set. Because it thinks
> it is in a non atomic context it locks the pcpu_alloc_mutex, which can
> result in a btrfs deadlock when pcpu_balance_workfn() is running, has
> acquired that mutex and is waiting for reclaim, while the btrfs task that
> called percpu_counter_init() (and therefore percpu_alloc()) is holding
> either the btrfs commit_root semaphore or a transaction handle (done at
> fs/btrfs/backref.c:iterate_extent_inodes()), which prevents reclaim from
> finishing as an attempt to commit the current btrfs transaction will
> deadlock.
...
> This could be fixed by making btrfs pass GFP_NOFS instead of GFP_KERNEL to
> percpu_counter_init() in contextes where it is not reclaim safe, however
> that type of approach is discouraged since memalloc_[nofs|noio]_save()
> were introduced. Therefore this change makes pcpu_alloc() look up into
> an existing nofs/noio context before deciding whether it is in an atomic
> context or not.
>
> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-30 16:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-30 16:43 [PATCH] percpu: make pcpu_alloc() aware of current gfp context fdmanana
2020-04-30 16:54 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2020-04-30 21:40 ` Andrew Morton
2020-04-30 22:23 ` Dennis Zhou
2020-04-30 22:43 ` Filipe Manana
2020-05-01 0:03 ` Dennis Zhou
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=20200430165437.GF5462@mtj.thefacebook.com \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=fdmanana@kernel.org \
--cc=fdmanana@suse.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.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.