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=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 E4185C433DF for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:54:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9666820716 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:54:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="CMcuY81H" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9666820716 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 3FA656B0003; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 07:54:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 3AB296B0005; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 07:54:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 271136B0007; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 07:54:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0077.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.77]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1219E6B0003 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 07:54:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E2F180AD815 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:54:09 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77149015818.11.knee57_5c0fcbc26ffc Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918B9180F8B81 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:54:09 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: knee57_5c0fcbc26ffc X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 9681 Received: from mail-lf1-f65.google.com (mail-lf1-f65.google.com [209.85.167.65]) by imf33.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:54:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f65.google.com with SMTP id 140so4667827lfi.5 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 04:54:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=UJJl1olZSgHT/Jhiu6r/OOA+3riqNMH1SSNROcXwYmY=; b=CMcuY81HMluGkYb/1C+u09CWQgmE09tMSaY7GvDq/pR3QhI33pkKgujynl/hZ9jBgH /dvaWJleyujfPgspa9NoiYoflc4BN5vTUK4uUGk1Mue8ZYHH2oHtPRRM/43/l/D5CJoA +HchcxtK+gM7Xij45NiX7hKf0exAfIrcImhIIoyidWiD6nZWr+jhsq9QjyTbS15QbLZZ EmtTjQ1deErpdhPlafFvf0U9lc9kr8RZON5Yse9k6axM6HWEeYDl1Uv1+4EIR2bn2Us8 EYK3a6tXOOK8MjYgWPycMtM8hiIOr6yR0x5ihFDeFSW6fApE7IP/b/oaF7tT9eaIu5Qm 6TWg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=UJJl1olZSgHT/Jhiu6r/OOA+3riqNMH1SSNROcXwYmY=; b=ablMnIjRcCS7EP08C9qR2+LutmuybBf93ds9eD8YBqL/ExlMKGezMmK8AFOOKF/Igt v/hDd/27EIEEZkqyDUoRx5h9QUwrI+kwlmaeq/yUEyiKS4pyojwUE8o8fSlAqfYyZsCO zoiFwwsK0V+JtGTcLv3D9rdyfST+L0i9b0FuMYy8ixlv+Rm7BDdiwT6lHdNLryufZ0xI HKeZHnxhEtdrTcM1hOISKH9WhZ3v2xnB3tmX0LJ5pYj8GryDt5D1BYsTVJsYlOhoo96Z iWxJLdgsUKuB5xfbRMVKXnqjB0OAOs+PNfbtlia/Pb59xxAdHzFjwemnDy4LePrXwOPW ICug== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530vKNKln4uPlHGD8xq1aTYJON+Srdu4byHBWDl9SM4Pf7DpK2GP XbyrHIQFViJPnO7MbmaqZ9Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzFYPbeNuK90JNB8ioSCS9m02KhJ8SDU8+0y3pJ0/R7Ht2Usjmqvx4nizWqMB5TGAVcqH/4og== X-Received: by 2002:a19:c894:: with SMTP id y142mr1002056lff.74.1597406047359; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 04:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc636 (h5ef52e31.seluork.dyn.perspektivbredband.net. [94.245.46.49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p13sm1879876lfc.63.2020.08.14.04.54.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 14 Aug 2020 04:54:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:54:04 +0200 To: Michal Hocko Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , "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: <20200814115404.GA28229@pc636> References: <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> <20200813163617.GS9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200813163617.GS9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 918B9180F8B81 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 06:36:17PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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 see your point. Doing GFP_NOWAIT & ~__GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM will do something different what people expect. Right you are. > > 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. > Now I see your view. So we can handle RT case by using "RT && !preemptible()", based on that we can bail out. GFP_ATOMIC and NOWAIT at least will keep same semantic. Second, if the CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING is fixed for PREEMPT_COUNT=n, then it would work. But i am lost here a bit if it is discussable or not. Thanks! -- Vlad Rezki