Re: [patch] mm: pagecache gfp flags fix

Andrew Morton
2008-12-15T23:20:27Z

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:41:20 +0100
Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:

> This patch doesn't actually fix a regression, but a longer standing bug.
> --
>
> Frustratingly, gfp_t is really divided into two classes of flags. One are the
> context dependent ones (can we sleep? can we enter filesystem? block subsystem?
> should we use some extra reserves, etc.). The other ones are the type of memory
> required and depend on how the algorithm is implemented rather than the point
> at which the memory is allocated (highmem? dma memory? etc).
>
> Some of functions which allocate a page and add it to page cache take a gfp_t,
> but sometimes those functions or their callers aren't really doing the right
> thing: when allocating pagecache page, the memory type should be
> mapping_gfp_mask(mapping). When allocating radix tree nodes, the memory type
> should be kernel mapped (not highmem) memory. The gfp_t argument should only
> really be needed for context dependent options.
>
> This patch doesn't really solve that tangle in a nice way, but it does attempt
> to fix a couple of bugs.
>
> - find_or_create_page changes its radix-tree allocation to only include the
> main context dependent flags in order so the pagecache page may be allocated
> from arbitrary types of memory without affecting the radix-tree. In practice,
> slab allocations don't come from highmem anyway, and radix-tree only uses
> slab allocations. So there isn't a practical change (unless some fs uses
> GFP_DMA for pages).
>
> - grab_cache_page_nowait() is changed to allocate radix-tree nodes with
> GFP_NOFS, because it is not supposed to reenter the filesystem. This bug
> could cause lock recursion if a filesystem is not expecting the function
> to reenter the fs (as-per documentation).
>
> Filesystems should be careful about exactly what semantics they want and what
> they get when fiddling with gfp_t masks to allocate pagecache. One should be
> as liberal as possible with the type of memory that can be used, and same
> for the the context specific flags.

ug. So at present page_symlink() can call write_begin() which will do
a GFP_KERNEL/GFP_USER allocation even though we hold fs locks?

In which calling context does this happen?

This is a pretty big ugly patch. I'm thinking that we merge into
2.6.29 and backport into 2.6.28.x.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: email@kvack.org