linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux.dev
Cc: david@redhat.com, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, cl@linux.com,
	hailong.liu@oppo.com, hch@infradead.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
	mhocko@suse.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com,
	roman.gushchin@linux.dev, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	urezki@gmail.com, v-songbaohua@oppo.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
	laoar.shao@gmail.com
Subject: [PATCH v4 3/3] mm: warn about illegal __GFP_NOFAIL usage in a more appropriate location and manner
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 08:28:23 +1200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240830202823.21478-4-21cnbao@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240830202823.21478-1-21cnbao@gmail.com>

From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>

Three points for this change:

1. We should consolidate all warnings in one place. Currently, the
   order > 1 warning is in the hotpath, while others are in less
   likely scenarios. Moving all warnings to the slowpath will reduce
   the overhead for order > 1 and increase the visibility of other
   warnings.

2. We currently have two warnings for order: one for order > 1 in
   the hotpath and another for order > costly_order in the laziest
   path. I suggest standardizing on order > 1 since it’s been in
   use for a long time.

3. We don't need to check for __GFP_NOWARN in this case. __GFP_NOWARN
   is meant to suppress allocation failure reports, but here we're
   dealing with bug detection, not allocation failures. So replace
   WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP by WARN_ON_ONCE.

Suggested-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
---
 mm/page_alloc.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index c81ee5662cc7..e790b4227322 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3033,12 +3033,6 @@ struct page *rmqueue(struct zone *preferred_zone,
 {
 	struct page *page;
 
-	/*
-	 * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
-	 * allocate greater than order-1 page units with __GFP_NOFAIL.
-	 */
-	WARN_ON_ONCE((gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL) && (order > 1));
-
 	if (likely(pcp_allowed_order(order))) {
 		page = rmqueue_pcplist(preferred_zone, zone, order,
 				       migratetype, alloc_flags);
@@ -4175,6 +4169,7 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
 {
 	bool can_direct_reclaim = gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM;
 	bool can_compact = gfp_compaction_allowed(gfp_mask);
+	bool nofail = gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL;
 	const bool costly_order = order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER;
 	struct page *page = NULL;
 	unsigned int alloc_flags;
@@ -4187,6 +4182,25 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
 	unsigned int zonelist_iter_cookie;
 	int reserve_flags;
 
+	if (unlikely(nofail)) {
+		/*
+		 * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
+		 * allocate greater than order-1 page units with __GFP_NOFAIL.
+		 */
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(order > 1);
+		/*
+		 * Also we don't support __GFP_NOFAIL without __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM,
+		 * otherwise, we may result in lockup.
+		 */
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(!can_direct_reclaim);
+		/*
+		 * PF_MEMALLOC request from this context is rather bizarre
+		 * because we cannot reclaim anything and only can loop waiting
+		 * for somebody to do a work for us.
+		 */
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC);
+	}
+
 restart:
 	compaction_retries = 0;
 	no_progress_loops = 0;
@@ -4404,29 +4418,15 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
 	 * Make sure that __GFP_NOFAIL request doesn't leak out and make sure
 	 * we always retry
 	 */
-	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) {
+	if (unlikely(nofail)) {
 		/*
-		 * All existing users of the __GFP_NOFAIL are blockable, so warn
-		 * of any new users that actually require GFP_NOWAIT
+		 * Lacking direct_reclaim we can't do anything to reclaim memory,
+		 * we disregard these unreasonable nofail requests and still
+		 * return NULL
 		 */
-		if (WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP(!can_direct_reclaim, gfp_mask))
+		if (!can_direct_reclaim)
 			goto fail;
 
-		/*
-		 * PF_MEMALLOC request from this context is rather bizarre
-		 * because we cannot reclaim anything and only can loop waiting
-		 * for somebody to do a work for us
-		 */
-		WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC, gfp_mask);
-
-		/*
-		 * non failing costly orders are a hard requirement which we
-		 * are not prepared for much so let's warn about these users
-		 * so that we can identify them and convert them to something
-		 * else.
-		 */
-		WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP(costly_order, gfp_mask);
-
 		/*
 		 * Help non-failing allocations by giving some access to memory
 		 * reserves normally used for high priority non-blocking
-- 
2.34.1



  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-08-30 20:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-08-30 20:28 [PATCH v4 0/3] mm/vdpa: correct misuse of non-direct-reclaim __GFP_NOFAIL and improve related doc and warn Barry Song
2024-08-30 20:28 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] vduse: avoid using __GFP_NOFAIL Barry Song
2024-09-02  7:33   ` David Hildenbrand
2024-09-02  7:58     ` Jason Wang
2024-09-02  8:30       ` David Hildenbrand
2024-09-03  0:35         ` Jason Wang
2024-08-30 20:28 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] mm: document __GFP_NOFAIL must be blockable Barry Song
2024-09-02  7:34   ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-30 20:28 ` Barry Song [this message]
2024-09-01 20:18   ` [PATCH v4 3/3] mm: warn about illegal __GFP_NOFAIL usage in a more appropriate location and manner Vlastimil Babka
2024-09-02  3:23   ` Yafang Shao
2024-09-02  4:00     ` Barry Song
2024-09-02  5:47       ` Yafang Shao
2024-09-02  7:40   ` David Hildenbrand
2024-09-02  7:58   ` Michal Hocko
2024-09-03 22:39     ` Barry Song
2024-09-04  7:22       ` Michal Hocko

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=20240830202823.21478-4-21cnbao@gmail.com \
    --to=21cnbao@gmail.com \
    --cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=hailong.liu@oppo.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=laoar.shao@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=urezki@gmail.com \
    --cc=v-songbaohua@oppo.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=virtualization@lists.linux.dev \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).