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
next prev 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).