Re: [RFC-PATCH 2/4] mm: Add __rcu_alloc_page_lockless() func.

Uladzislau Rezki
2020-09-29T16:25:22Z

> > I look at it in scope of GFP_ATOMIC/GFP_NOWAIT issues, i.e. inability
> > to provide a memory service for contexts which are not allowed to
> > sleep, RCU is part of them. Both flags used to provide such ability
> > before but not anymore.
> >
> > Do you agree with it?
>
> Yes this sucks. But this is something that we likely really want to live
> with. We have to explicitly _document_ that really atomic contexts in RT
> cannot use the allocator. From the past discussions we've had this is
> likely the most reasonable way forward because we do not really want to
> encourage anybody to do something like that and there should be ways
> around that. The same is btw. true also for !RT. The allocator is not
> NMI safe and while we should be able to make it compatible I am not
> convinced we really want to.
>
> Would something like this be helpful wrt documentation?
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h
> index 67a0774e080b..9fcd47606493 100644
> --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> @@ -238,7 +238,9 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> * %__GFP_FOO flags as necessary.
> *
> * %GFP_ATOMIC users can not sleep and need the allocation to succeed. A lower
> - * watermark is applied to allow access to "atomic reserves"
> + * watermark is applied to allow access to "atomic reserves".
> + * The current implementation doesn't support NMI and other non-preemptive context
> + * (e.g. raw_spin_lock).
> *
> * %GFP_KERNEL is typical for kernel-internal allocations. The caller requires
> * %ZONE_NORMAL or a lower zone for direct access but can direct reclaim.
>
To me it is clear. But also above conflicting statement:

<snip>
%GFP_ATOMIC users can not sleep and need the allocation to succeed. A %lower
<snip>

should be rephrased, IMHO.

--
Vlad Rezki