From: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid livelock on !__GFP_FS allocations
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 00:22:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMbhsRRZBUcfv5kT4aYm=Z3+kc-usYJVqyc_+1gAEy-4yH_nPQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1110260006470.23227@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:10 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Colin Cross wrote:
>
>> > gfp_allowed_mask is initialized to GFP_BOOT_MASK to start so that __GFP_FS
>> > is never allowed before the slab allocator is completely initialized, so
>> > you've now implicitly made all early boot allocations to be __GFP_NORETRY
>> > even though they may not pass it.
>>
>> Only before interrupts are enabled, and then isn't it vulnerable to
>> the same livelock? Interrupts are off, single cpu, kswapd can't run.
>> If an allocation ever failed, which seems unlikely, why would retrying
>> help?
>>
>
> If you want to claim gfp_allowed_mask as a pm-only entity, then I see no
> problem with this approach. However, if gfp_allowed_mask would be allowed
> to temporarily change after init for another purpose then it would make
> sense to retry because another allocation with __GFP_FS on another cpu or
> kswapd could start making progress could allow for future memory freeing.
>
> The suggestion to add a hook directly into a pm-interface was so that we
> could isolate it only to suspend and, to me, is the most maintainable
> solution.
>
pm_restrict_gfp_mask seems to claim gfp_allowed_mask as owned by pm at runtime:
"gfp_allowed_mask also should only be modified with pm_mutex held,
unless the suspend/hibernate code is guaranteed not to run in parallel
with that modification"
I think we've wrapped around to Mel's original patch, which adds a
pm_suspending() helper that is implemented next to
pm_restrict_gfp_mask. His patch puts the check inside
!did_some_progress instead of should_alloc_retry, which I prefer as it
at least keeps trying until reclaim isn't working. Pekka was trying
to avoid adding pm-specific checks into the allocator, which is why I
stuck to the symptom (__GFP_FS is clear) rather than the cause (PM).
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-26 7:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-25 6:39 [PATCH] mm: avoid livelock on !__GFP_FS allocations Colin Cross
2011-10-25 7:40 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-10-25 7:51 ` Colin Cross
2011-10-25 8:08 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-10-25 22:12 ` David Rientjes
2011-10-25 9:09 ` Mel Gorman
2011-10-25 9:26 ` Colin Cross
2011-10-25 11:23 ` Mel Gorman
2011-10-25 17:08 ` Colin Cross
2011-11-01 12:28 ` Mel Gorman
2011-10-25 19:39 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-01 12:29 ` Mel Gorman
2011-10-25 19:29 ` Colin Cross
2011-10-25 22:18 ` David Rientjes
2011-10-26 1:46 ` Colin Cross
2011-10-26 5:47 ` David Rientjes
2011-10-26 6:12 ` David Rientjes
2011-10-26 6:16 ` Colin Cross
2011-10-26 6:24 ` David Rientjes
2011-10-26 6:26 ` Colin Cross
2011-10-26 6:33 ` David Rientjes
2011-10-26 6:36 ` Colin Cross
2011-10-26 6:51 ` David Rientjes
2011-10-26 6:57 ` Colin Cross
2011-10-26 7:10 ` David Rientjes
2011-10-26 7:22 ` Colin Cross [this message]
2011-11-01 12:36 ` Mel Gorman
2011-10-25 22:10 ` David Rientjes
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-11-14 14:04 Mel Gorman
2011-11-14 18:38 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-15 10:30 ` Mel Gorman
2011-11-14 23:03 ` Andrew Morton
2011-11-15 10:42 ` Mel Gorman
2011-11-15 15:43 ` Mel Gorman
2011-11-15 16:13 ` Minchan Kim
2011-11-15 17:36 ` Mel Gorman
2011-11-16 0:22 ` Minchan Kim
2011-11-16 0:28 ` Colin Cross
2011-11-16 0:45 ` Minchan Kim
2011-11-16 7:10 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-16 21:44 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-16 21:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-11-16 22:07 ` Minchan Kim
2011-11-16 22:48 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-15 21:40 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-16 9:52 ` Mel Gorman
2011-11-16 21:39 ` David Rientjes
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='CAMbhsRRZBUcfv5kT4aYm=Z3+kc-usYJVqyc_+1gAEy-4yH_nPQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=ccross@android.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/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).