linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
To: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
	kafai@fb.com,  songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com,
	john.fastabend@gmail.com,  kpsingh@kernel.org,
	quentin@isovalent.com, roman.gushchin@linux.dev,
	 haoluo@google.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf: Make non-preallocated allocation low priority
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 00:07:21 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220707000721.dtl356trspb23ctp@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220706155848.4939-2-laoar.shao@gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 03:58:47PM +0000, Yafang Shao wrote:
> GFP_ATOMIC doesn't cooperate well with memcg pressure so far, especially
> if we allocate too much GFP_ATOMIC memory. For example, when we set the
> memcg limit to limit a non-preallocated bpf memory, the GFP_ATOMIC can
> easily break the memcg limit by force charge. So it is very dangerous to
> use GFP_ATOMIC in non-preallocated case. One way to make it safe is to
> remove __GFP_HIGH from GFP_ATOMIC, IOW, use (__GFP_ATOMIC |
> __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM) instead, then it will be limited if we allocate
> too much memory.

Please use GFP_NOWAIT instead of (__GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM).
There is already a plan to completely remove __GFP_ATOMIC and mm-tree
already have a patch for that.

> 
> We introduced BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC is because full map pre-allocation is
> too memory expensive for some cases. That means removing __GFP_HIGH
> doesn't break the rule of BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC, but has the same goal with
> it-avoiding issues caused by too much memory. So let's remove it.
> 
> The force charge of GFP_ATOMIC was introduced in
> commit 869712fd3de5 ("mm: memcontrol: fix network errors from failing
> __GFP_ATOMIC charges") by checking __GFP_ATOMIC, then got improved in
> commit 1461e8c2b6af ("memcg: unify force charging conditions") by
> checking __GFP_HIGH (that is no problem because both __GFP_HIGH and
> __GFP_ATOMIC are set in GFP_AOMIC). So, if we want to fix it in memcg,
> we have to carefully verify all the callsites. Now that we can fix it in
> BPF, we'd better not modify the memcg code.
> 
> This fix can also apply to other run-time allocations, for example, the
> allocation in lpm trie, local storage and devmap. So let fix it
> consistently over the bpf code
> 
> __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM doesn't cooperate well with memcg pressure neither
> currently. But the memcg code can be improved to make
> __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM work well under memcg pressure if desired.
> 

IMO there is no need to give all this detail and background on
GFP_ATOMIC and __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM. Just say kernel allows GFP_ATOMIC
allocations to exceed memcg limits which we don't want in this case. So,
replace with GFP_NOWAIT which obey memcg limits. Both of these flags
tell kernel that the caller can not sleep.



  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-07-07  0:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-06 15:58 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/2] bpf: Minor fixes for non-preallocated memory Yafang Shao
2022-07-06 15:58 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf: Make non-preallocated allocation low priority Yafang Shao
2022-07-06 16:47   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-07-06 19:09     ` Roman Gushchin
2022-07-06 22:11       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-07-06 22:54         ` Roman Gushchin
2022-07-06 23:22           ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-07-07  0:07   ` Shakeel Butt [this message]
2022-07-07  0:14     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-07-07  0:25     ` Roman Gushchin
2022-07-07  2:09       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-07-07  3:36         ` Roman Gushchin
2022-07-07 10:27     ` Yafang Shao
2022-07-07 15:44       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-07-07 16:19         ` Yafang Shao
2022-07-06 15:58 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/2] bpf: Warn on non-preallocated case for missed trace types Yafang Shao
2022-07-06 16:50   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-07-07 10:29     ` Yafang Shao
2022-07-07 15:45       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-07-07 16:22         ` Yafang Shao

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20220707000721.dtl356trspb23ctp@google.com \
    --to=shakeelb@google.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=haoluo@google.com \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=kafai@fb.com \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=laoar.shao@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=quentin@isovalent.com \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
    --cc=yhs@fb.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox