Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm: Add memalloc_nowait

Michal Hocko
2020-07-01T05:53:53Z

On Wed 01-07-20 05:12:03, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 08:34:36AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 29-06-20 22:28:30, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > [...]
> > > The documentation is hard to add a new case to, so I rewrote it. What
> > > do you think? (Obviously I'll split this out differently for submission;
> > > this is just what I have in my tree right now).
> >
> > I am fine with your changes. Few notes below.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > > -It turned out though that above approach has led to
> > > -abuses when the restricted gfp mask is used "just in case" without a
> > > -deeper consideration which leads to problems because an excessive use
> > > -of GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO can lead to memory over-reclaim or other memory
> > > -reclaim issues.
> >
> > I believe this is an important part because it shows that new people
> > coming to the existing code shouldn't take it as correct and rather
> > question it. Also having a clear indication that overuse is causing real
> > problems that might be not immediately visible to subsystems outside of
> > MM.
>
> It seemed to say a lot of the same things as this paragraph:
>
> +You may notice that quite a few allocations in the existing code specify
> +``GFP_NOIO`` or ``GFP_NOFS``. Historically, they were used to prevent
> +recursion deadlocks caused by direct memory reclaim calling back into
> +the FS or IO paths and blocking on already held resources. Since 4.12
> +the preferred way to address this issue is to use the new scope APIs
> +described below.
>
> Since this is in core-api/ rather than vm/, I felt that discussion of
> the problems that it causes to the mm was a bit too much detail for the
> people who would be reading this document. Maybe I could move that
> information into a new Documentation/vm/reclaim.rst file?

Hmm, my experience is that at least some users of NOFS/NOIO use this
flag just to be sure they do not do something wrong without realizing
that this might have a very negative effect on the whole system
operation. That was the main motivation to have an explicit note there.
I am not sure having that in MM internal documentation will make it
stand out for a general reader.

But I will not insist of course.

> Let's see if Our Grumpy Editor has time to give us his advice on this.
>
> > > -FS/IO code then simply calls the appropriate save function before
> > > -any critical section with respect to the reclaim is started - e.g.
> > > -lock shared with the reclaim context or when a transaction context
> > > -nesting would be possible via reclaim.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > +These functions should be called at the point where any memory allocation
> > > +would start to cause problems. That is, do not simply wrap individual
> > > +memory allocation calls which currently use ``GFP_NOFS`` with a pair
> > > +of calls to memalloc_nofs_save() and memalloc_nofs_restore(). Instead,
> > > +find the lock which is taken that would cause problems if memory reclaim
> > > +reentered the filesystem, place a call to memalloc_nofs_save() before it
> > > +is acquired and a call to memalloc_nofs_restore() after it is released.
> > > +Ideally also add a comment explaining why this lock will be problematic.
> >
> > The above text has mentioned the transaction context nesting as well and
> > that was a hint by Dave IIRC. It is imho good to have an example of
> > other reentrant points than just locks. I believe another useful example
> > would be something like loop device which is mixing IO and FS layers but
> > I am not familiar with all the details to give you an useful text.
>
> I'll let Mikulas & Dave finish fighting about that before I write any
> text mentioning the loop driver. How about this for mentioning the
> filesystem transaction possibility?
>
> @@ -103,12 +103,16 @@ flags specified by any particular call to allocate memory.
>
> These functions should be called at the point where any memory allocation
> would start to cause problems. That is, do not simply wrap individual
> -memory allocation calls which currently use ``GFP_NOFS`` with a pair
> -of calls to memalloc_nofs_save() and memalloc_nofs_restore(). Instead,
> -find the lock which is taken that would cause problems if memory reclaim
> +memory allocation calls which currently use ``GFP_NOFS`` with a pair of
> +calls to memalloc_nofs_save() and memalloc_nofs_restore(). Instead, find
> +the resource which is acquired that would cause problems if memory reclaim
> reentered the filesystem, place a call to memalloc_nofs_save() before it
> is acquired and a call to memalloc_nofs_restore() after it is released.
> Ideally also add a comment explaining why this lock will be problematic.
> +A resource might be a lock which would need to be acquired by an attempt
> +to reclaim memory, or it might be starting a transaction that should not
> +nest over a memory reclaim transaction. Deep knowledge of the filesystem
> +or driver is often needed to place memory scoping calls correctly.

Ack

> Please note that the proper pairing of save/restore functions
> allows nesting so it is safe to call memalloc_noio_save() and
>
> > > @@ -104,16 +134,19 @@ ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN bytes. For sizes which are a power of two, the
> > > alignment is also guaranteed to be at least the respective size.
> > >
> > > For large allocations you can use vmalloc() and vzalloc(), or directly
> > > -request pages from the page allocator. The memory allocated by `vmalloc`
> > > -and related functions is not physically contiguous.
> > > +request pages from the page allocator. The memory allocated by `vmalloc`
> > > +and related functions is not physically contiguous. The `vmalloc`
> > > +family of functions don't support the old ``GFP_NOFS`` or ``GFP_NOIO``
> > > +flags because there are hardcoded ``GFP_KERNEL`` allocations deep inside
> > > +the allocator which are hard to remove. However, the scope APIs described
> > > +above can be used to limit the `vmalloc` functions.
> >
> > I would reiterate "Do not just wrap vmalloc by the scope api but rather
> > rely on the real scope for the NOFS/NOIO context". Maybe we want to
> > stress out that once a scope is defined it is sticky to _all_
> > allocations and all allocators within that scope. The text is already
> > saying that but maybe we want to make it explicit and make it stand out.
>
> yes. I went with:
>
> @@ -139,7 +143,10 @@ and related functions is not physically contiguous. The `vmalloc`
> family of functions don't support the old ``GFP_NOFS`` or ``GFP_NOIO``
> flags because there are hardcoded ``GFP_KERNEL`` allocations deep inside
> the allocator which are hard to remove. However, the scope APIs described
> -above can be used to limit the `vmalloc` functions.
> +above can be used to limit the `vmalloc` functions. As described above,
> +do not simply wrap individual calls in the scope APIs, but look for the
> +underlying reason why the memory allocation may not call into filesystems
> +or block devices.

ack

>
> If you are not sure whether the allocation size is too large for
> `kmalloc`, it is possible to use kvmalloc() and its derivatives. It will
>
>
> > [...]
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched/mm.h b/include/linux/sched/mm.h
> > > index 6484569f50df..9fc091274d1d 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/sched/mm.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/sched/mm.h
> > > @@ -186,9 +186,10 @@ static inline gfp_t current_gfp_context(gfp_t flags)
> > > * them. noio implies neither IO nor FS and it is a weaker
> > > * context so always make sure it takes precedence.
> > > */
> > > - if (current->memalloc_nowait)
> > > + if (current->memalloc_nowait) {
> > > flags &= ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM;
> > > - else if (current->memalloc_noio)
> > > + flags |= __GFP_NOWARN;
> >
> > I dunno. I wouldn't make nowait implicitly NOWARN as well. At least not
> > with the initial implementation. Maybe we will learn later that there is
> > just too much unhelpful noise in the kernel log and will reconsider but
> > I wouldn't just start with that. Also we might learn that there will be
> > other modifiers for atomic (or should I say non-sleeping) scopes to be
> > defined. E.g. access to memory reserves but let's just wait for real
> > usecases.
>
> Fair enough. I'll drop that part. Thanks!

thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs