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

Michal Hocko
2020-10-05T15:41:05Z

On Mon 05-10-20 17:08:01, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 11:05:07AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 02-10-20 09:50:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 09:11:23AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Thu 01-10-20 21:26:26, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, I meant going back to idea of new gfp flag, but adjust the implementation in
> > > > > > the allocator (different from what you posted in previous version) so that it
> > > > > > only looks at the flag after it tries to allocate from pcplist and finds out
> > > > > > it's empty. So, no inventing of new page allocator entry points or checks such
> > > > > > as the one you wrote above, but adding the new gfp flag in a way that it doesn't
> > > > > > affect existing fast paths.
> > > > > >
> > > > > OK. Now i see. Please have a look below at the patch, so we fully understand
> > > > > each other. If that is something that is close to your view or not:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > t a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > > > > index c603237e006c..7e613560a502 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > > > > @@ -39,8 +39,9 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> > > > > #define ___GFP_HARDWALL 0x100000u
> > > > > #define ___GFP_THISNODE 0x200000u
> > > > > #define ___GFP_ACCOUNT 0x400000u
> > > > > +#define ___GFP_NO_LOCKS 0x800000u
> > > >
> > > > Even if a new gfp flag gains a sufficient traction and support I am
> > > > _strongly_ opposed against consuming another flag for that. Bit space is
> > > > limited.
> > >
> > > That is definitely true. I'm not happy with the GFP flag at all, the
> > > comment is at best a damage limiting move. It still would be better for
> > > a memory pool to be reserved and sized for critical allocations.
> >
> > Completely agreed. The only existing usecase is so special cased that a
> > dedicated pool is not only easier to maintain but it should be also much
> > better tuned for the specific workload. Something not really feasible
> > with the allocator.
> >
> > > > Besides that we certainly do not want to allow craziness like
> > > > __GFP_NO_LOCK | __GFP_RECLAIM (and similar), do we?
> > >
> > > That would deserve to be taken to a dumpster and set on fire. The flag
> > > combination could be checked in the allocator but the allocator path fast
> > > paths are bad enough already.
> >
> > If a new allocation/gfp mode is absolutely necessary then I believe that
> > the most reasoanble way forward would be
> > #define GFP_NO_LOCK ((__force gfp_t)0)
> >
> Agree. Even though i see that some code should be adjusted for it. There are
> a few users of the __get_free_page(0); So, need to double check it:

Yes, I believe I have pointed that out in the previous discussion.

> <snip>
> [ 0.650351] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000010
> [ 0.651083] #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode
> [ 0.651639] #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page
> [ 0.652200] PGD 0 P4D 0
> [ 0.652523] Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI
> [ 0.652668] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.9.0-rc7-next-20200930+ #140
> [ 0.652668] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.12.0-1 04/01/2014
> [ 0.652668] RIP: 0010:__find_event_file+0x21/0x80
> <snip>
>
> Apart of that. There is a post_alloc_hook(), that gets called from the prep_new_page().
> If "debug page alloc enabled", it maps a page for debug purposes invoking kernel_map_pages().
> __kernel_map_pages() is ARCH specific. For example, powerpc variant uses sleep-able locks
> what can be easily converted to raw variant.

Yes, there are likely more surprises like that. I am not sure about
kasan, page owner (which depens on the stack unwinder) and others which
hook into this path.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs