From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67657C433E1 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:05:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1972B2078D for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:05:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="E+mNz3Nm" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1972B2078D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id AC21F6B0010; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:05:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A4B696B0023; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:05:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 8ECA66B0024; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:05:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0004.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.4]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B256B0010 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:05:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin12.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F7AF181AC9C6 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:05:13 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77146019706.12.tray59_5510e9326ff5 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41D7A18025048 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:04:51 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: tray59_5510e9326ff5 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 7068 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf41.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:04:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-P72.home (unknown [50.45.173.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4D412078D; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:04:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1597334682; bh=XqcHT3MKT/04RZq+kFZVQf0kCHYUKx7+O2n73vzqiLA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=E+mNz3NmgfvdmI+risGgO+wtDgnsWWtgjpMC5uqNosNdTzXF3abAOxC6/cUfi1Qc6 1mCWH5RqbyjEkNWyfF8IU5+ZqwG/467m7DCOZMfGTEedWPcW5z5Nna4isCbKimPtuP lzujRN7egrOhqHQefWfzob8g/tG/w0s1vp+JbCII= Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P72.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8C248352279C; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:04:42 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Michal Hocko Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Uladzislau Rezki , LKML , RCU , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Matthew Wilcox , "Theodore Y . Ts'o" , Joel Fernandes , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Oleksiy Avramchenko , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 1/2] mm: Add __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag Message-ID: <20200813160442.GV4295@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org References: <20200811210931.GZ4295@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <874kp87mca.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200813075027.GD9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200813095840.GA25268@pc636> <874kp6llzb.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200813133308.GK9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87sgcqty0e.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200813145335.GN9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200813154159.GR4295@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200813155412.GP9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200813155412.GP9477@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 41D7A18025048 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 05:54:12PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 13-08-20 08:41:59, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 04:53:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 13-08-20 16:34:57, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > Michal Hocko writes: > > > > > On Thu 13-08-20 15:22:00, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > >> It basically requires to convert the wait queue to something else. Is > > > > >> the waitqueue strict single waiter? > > > > > > > > > > I would have to double check. From what I remember only kswapd should > > > > > ever sleep on it. > > > > > > > > That would make it trivial as we could simply switch it over to rcu_wait. > > > > > > > > >> So that should be: > > > > >> > > > > >> if (!preemptible() && gfp == GFP_RT_NOWAIT) > > > > >> > > > > >> which is limiting the damage to those callers which hand in > > > > >> GFP_RT_NOWAIT. > > > > >> > > > > >> lockdep will yell at invocations with gfp != GFP_RT_NOWAIT when it hits > > > > >> zone->lock in the wrong context. And we want to know about that so we > > > > >> can look at the caller and figure out how to solve it. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that would have to somehow need to annotate the zone_lock to be ok > > > > > in those paths so that lockdep doesn't complain. > > > > > > > > That opens the worst of all cans of worms. If we start this here then > > > > Joe programmer and his dog will use these lockdep annotation to evade > > > > warnings and when exposed to RT it will fall apart in pieces. Just that > > > > at that point Joe programmer moved on to something else and the usual > > > > suspects can mop up the pieces. We've seen that all over the place and > > > > some people even disable lockdep temporarily because annotations don't > > > > help. > > > > > > Hmm. I am likely missing something really important here. We have two > > > problems at hand: > > > 1) RT will become broken as soon as this new RCU functionality which > > > requires an allocation from inside of raw_spinlock hits the RT tree > > > 2) lockdep splats which are telling us that early because of the > > > raw_spinlock-> spin_lock dependency. > > > > That is a reasonable high-level summary. > > > > > 1) can be handled by handled by the bailing out whenever we have to use > > > zone->lock inside the buddy allocator - essentially even more strict > > > NOWAIT semantic than we have for RT tree - proposed (pseudo) patch is > > > trying to describe that. > > > > Unless I am missing something subtle, the problem with this approach > > is that in production-environment CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y kernels, there > > is no way at runtime to distinguish between holding a spinlock on the > > one hand and holding a raw spinlock on the other. Therefore, without > > some sort of indication from the caller, this approach will not make > > CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y users happy. > > If the whole bailout is guarded by CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT specific atomicity > check then there is no functional problem - GFP_RT_SAFE would still be > GFP_NOWAIT so functional wise the allocator will still do the right > thing. Perhaps it was just me getting confused, early hour Pacific Time and whatever other excuses might apply. But I thought that you still had an objection to GFP_RT_SAFE based on changes in allocator semantics for other users. Of course, if it is just me being confused, by all means let's give this a shot!!! > [...] > > > > That would require changing NOWAIT/ATOMIC allocations semantic quite > > > drastically for !RT kernels as well. I am not sure this is something we > > > can do. Or maybe I am just missing your point. > > > > Exactly, and avoiding changing this semantic for current users is > > precisely why we are proposing some sort of indication to be passed > > into the allocation request. In Uladzislau's patch, this was the > > __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag, but whatever works. > > As I've tried to explain already, I would really hope we can do without > any new gfp flags. We are running out of them and they tend to generate > a lot of maintenance burden. There is a lot of abuse etc. We should also > not expose such an implementation detail of the allocator to callers > because that would make future changes even harder. The alias, on the > othere hand already builds on top of existing NOWAIT semantic and it > just helps the allocator to complain about a wrong usage while it > doesn't expose any internals. And I am plenty happy if an existing flag or set of flags (up to and including the all-zeroes empty set) can be used in this case. Thanx, Paul