Re: [PATCH 2/3] xfs: add kmem_alloc_io()

Vlastimil Babka
2019-08-22T14:26:45Z

On 8/22/19 3:17 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 02:19:04PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 8/22/19 2:07 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 01:14:30PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> >
>> > No, the problem is this (using kmalloc as a general term for
>> > allocation, whether it be kmalloc, kmem_cache_alloc, alloc_page, etc)
>> >
>> > some random kernel code
>> > kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL)
>> > reclaim
>> > PF_MEMALLOC
>> > shrink_slab
>> > xfs_inode_shrink
>> > XFS_ILOCK
>> > xfs_buf_allocate_memory()
>> > kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL)
>> >
>> > And so locks on inodes in reclaim are seen below reclaim. Then
>> > somewhere else we have:
>> >
>> > some high level read-only xfs code like readdir
>> > XFS_ILOCK
>> > xfs_buf_allocate_memory()
>> > kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL)
>> > reclaim
>> >
>> > And this one throws false positive lockdep warnings because we
>> > called into reclaim with XFS_ILOCK held and GFP_KERNEL alloc
>>
>> OK, and what exactly makes this positive a false one? Why can't it continue like
>> the first example where reclaim leads to another XFS_ILOCK, thus deadlock?
>
> Because above reclaim we only have operations being done on
> referenced inodes, and below reclaim we only have unreferenced
> inodes. We never lock the same inode both above and below reclaim
> at the same time.
>
> IOWs, an operation above reclaim cannot see, access or lock
> unreferenced inodes, except in inode write clustering, and that uses
> trylocks so cannot deadlock with reclaim.
>
> An operation below reclaim cannot see, access or lock referenced
> inodes except during inode write clustering, and that uses trylocks
> so cannot deadlock with code above reclaim.

Thanks for elaborating. Perhaps lockdep experts (not me) would know how to
express that. If not possible, then replacing GFP_NOFS with __GFP_NOLOCKDEP
should indeed suppress the warning, while allowing FS reclaim.

> FWIW, I'm trying to make the inode writeback clustering go away from
> reclaim at the moment, so even that possibility is going away soon.
> That will change everything to trylocks in reclaim context, so
> lockdep is going to stop tracking it entirely.

That's also a nice solution :)

> Hmmm - maybe we're getting to the point where we actually
> don't need GFP_NOFS/PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS at all in XFS anymore.....
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
>