Re: [PATCH] mm: add gfp_mask parameter to vm_map_ram()

Andreas Dilger
2012-06-14T07:52:22Z

On 2012-06-13, at 9:34 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:07:53AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> Hi Fengguang,
>>
>> On 06/14/2012 10:49 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:20:26AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 08:39:32PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>>>>> Hi Christoph, Dave,
>>>>>
>>>>> I got this lockdep warning on XFS when running the xfs tests:
>
> [rant warning]

I heartily agree with Dave on this. There are plenty of places
that would be simplified by making vmalloc() work better. Instead,
there are workarounds (e.g. allocating 2-level trees of pointers
to smaller kmalloc'd elements, instead of a single large array)
spread around that add to code complexity and memory inefficiency.

I don't think there is a real danger of people starting to abuse
vmalloc() for everything, but does it really make sense to keep
some component of the kernel at sub-par functionality/efficiency
just to discourage its use?

Cheers, Andreas

>>>> Bug in vm_map_ram - it does an unconditional GFP_KERNEL allocation
>>>> here, and we are in a GFP_NOFS context. We can't pass a gfp_mask to
>>>> vm_map_ram(), so until vm_map_ram() grows that we can't fix it...
>>>
>>> This trivial patch should fix it.
> .....
>>
>> It shouldn't work because vmap_page_range still can allocate GFP_KERNEL by pud_alloc in vmap_pud_range.
>> For it, I tried [1] but other mm guys want to add WARNING [2] so let's avoiding gfp context passing.
>
> Oh, wonderful, you're pulling the "it's not a MM issue, don't use
> vmalloc" card.
>
>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/23/77
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/24/29
>
> "vmalloc was never supposed to use gfp flags for allocation
> "context" restriction. I.e., it was always supposed to have
> blocking, fs, and io capable allocation context."
>
> vmalloc always was a badly neglected, ugly step-sister of kmalloc
> that was kept in the basement and only brought out when the tax
> collector called. But that inner ugliness doesn't change the fact
> that beatiful things have been built around it. XFS has used
> vm_map_ram() and it's predecessor since it was first ported to linux
> some 13 or 14 years ago, so the above claim is way out of date. i.e.
> vmalloc has been used in GFP_NOFS context since before that flag
> even existed....
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/24/67
>
> "I would say add a bit of warnings and documentation, and see what
> can be done about callers."
>
> Wonderful. Well, there's about 2 years of work queued up for me
> before I even get to the do the open heart surgery that would allow
> XFS to handle memory allocation failures at this level without
> causing the filesystem to shut down.
>
> Andrew Morton's response:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/24/413
>
> "There are gruesome problems in block/blk-throttle.c (thread
> "mempool, percpu, blkcg: fix percpu stat allocation and remove
> stats_lock"). It wants to do an alloc_percpu()->vmalloc() from the
> IO submission path, under GFP_NOIO.
>
> Changing vmalloc() to take a gfp_t does make lots of sense, although
> I worry a bit about making vmalloc() easier to use!"
>
> OK, so according to Andrew there is no technical reason why it can't
> be done, it's just handwaving about "vmalloc is bad"....
>
>
>> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/2/340
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/2/452
>
> "> Where are these offending callsites?
>
> dm:
> ...
> ubi:
> ....
> ext4:
> ....
> ntfs:
> ....
> ubifs:
> ....
> mm:
> ....
> ceph:
> ...."
>
> So, we've got a bunch of filesystems that require vmalloc under
> GFP_NOFS conditions. Perhaps there's a reason for needing to be able
> to do this in filesystem code? Like, perhaps, avoiding memory
> reclaim deadlocks?
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/3/27
>
> "Note that in writeback paths, a "good citizen" filesystem should
> not require any allocations, or at least it should be able to
> tolerate allocation failures. So fixing that would be a good idea
> anyway."
>
> Oh, please. I have been hearing this for years, and are we any
> closer to it? No, we are further away from ever being able to
> acheive this than ever. Face it, filesystems require memory
> allocation to write dirty data to disk, and the amount is almost
> impossible to define. Hence mempools can't be used because we can't
> give any guarantees of forward progress. And for vmalloc?
>
> Filesystems widely use vmalloc/vm_map_ram because kmalloc fails on
> large contiguous allocations. This renders kmalloc unfit for
> purpose, so we have to fall back to single page allocation and
> vm_map_ram or vmalloc so that the filesystem can function properly.
> And to avoid deadlocks, all memory allocation must be able to
> specify GFP_NOFS to prevent the MM subsystem from recursing into the
> filesystem. Therefore, vmalloc needs to support GFP_NOFS.
>
> I don't care how you make it happen, just fix it. Trying to place
> the blame on the filesystem folk for using vmalloc in GFP_NOFS
> contexts is a total and utter cop-out, because mm folk of all people
> should know that non-zero order kmalloc is not a reliable
> alternative....
>
> [end rant]
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Cheers, Andreas