Re: [PATCH 0/2 v2] remove PF_MEMALLOC_NORECLAIM

["Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 01:26:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > This is exactly GFP_KERNEL semantic for low order allocations or
> > > > > kvmalloc for that matter. They simply never fail unless couple of corner
> > > > > cases - e.g. the allocating task is an oom victim and all of the oom
> > > > > memory reserves have been consumed. This is where we call "not possible
> > > > > to allocate".
> > > > 
> > > > Which does beg the question of why GFP_NOFAIL exists.
> > > 
> > > Exactly for the reason that even rare failure is not acceptable and
> > > there is no way to handle it other than keep retrying. Typical code was 
> > > 	while (!(ptr = kmalloc()))
> > > 		;
> > 
> > But is it _rare_ failure, or _no_ failure?
> >
> > You seem to be saying (and I just reviewed the code, it looks like
> > you're right) that there is essentially no difference in behaviour
> > between GFP_KERNEL and GFP_NOFAIL.

That may be the currrent state of affiars; but is it
****guaranteed**** forever and ever, amen, that GFP_KERNEL will never
fail if the amount of memory allocated was lower than a particular
multiple of the page size?  If so, what is that size?  I've checked,
and this is not documented in the formal interface.

> The fundamental difference is that (appart from unsupported allocation
> mode/size) the latter never returns NULL and you can rely on that fact.
> Our docummentation says:
>  * %__GFP_NOFAIL: The VM implementation _must_ retry infinitely: the caller
>  * cannot handle allocation failures. The allocation could block
>  * indefinitely but will never return with failure. Testing for
>  * failure is pointless.

So if the documentation is going to give similar guarantees, as
opposed to it being an accident of the current implementation that is
subject to change at any time, then sure, we can probably get away
with all or most of ext4's uses of __GFP_NOFAIL.  But I don't want to
do that and then have a "Lucy and Charlie Brown" moment from the
Peanuts comics strip where the football suddenly gets snatched away
from us[1] (and many file sytem users will be very, very sad and/or
angry).

[1] https://www.cracked.com/article_37831_good-grief-how-lucy-pulling-the-football-away-from-charlie-brown-became-a-signature-peanuts-gag.html

It might be that other file systems have requirements which isblarger
than the not-formally-defined GFP_KMALLOC guarantee, but it's true we
can probably reduce the usage of GFP_NOFAIL if this guarantee is
formalized.

						- Ted