linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
To: 21cnbao@gmail.com, mhocko@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz
Cc: 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cl@linux.com,
	david@redhat.com, hailong.liu@oppo.com, hch@infradead.org,
	iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, laoar.shao@gmail.com,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com,
	roman.gushchin@linux.dev, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	urezki@gmail.com, v-songbaohua@oppo.com,
	virtualization@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] mm: clarify nofail memory allocation
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 10:31:14 +1200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240829223114.1102-1-21cnbao@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGsJ_4wZiE08XDjNAPENwH=KQEzdm2FB_bMDi0b7PJx+e7ydrA@mail.gmail.com>

> > > Patch 4/4: We will move the order > 1 check from the current fast path
> > > to the slow path and extend
> > >                  the check of gfp_direct_reclaim flag also in the slow path.
> >
> > OK, let's have that go in now as well.

Hi Michal and Vlastimil,
Could you please review the changes below before I send v4 for patch 4/4?

1. We should consolidate all warnings in one place. Currently, the order > 1 warning is
in the hotpath, while others are in less likely scenarios. Moving all warnings to the
slowpath will reduce the overhead for order > 1 and increase the visibility of other
warnings.

2. We currently have two warnings for order: one for order > 1 in the hotpath and another
for order > costly_order in the laziest path. I suggest standardizing on order > 1 since
it’s been in use for a long time.

3.I don't think we need to check for __GFP_NOWARN in this case. __GFP_NOWARN is
meant to suppress allocation failure reports, but here we're dealing with bug detection, not
allocation failures.
So I'd rather use WARN_ON_ONCE than WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP.

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index c81ee5662cc7..0d3dd679d0ab 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3033,12 +3033,6 @@ struct page *rmqueue(struct zone *preferred_zone,
 {
 	struct page *page;
 
-	/*
-	 * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
-	 * allocate greater than order-1 page units with __GFP_NOFAIL.
-	 */
-	WARN_ON_ONCE((gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL) && (order > 1));
-
 	if (likely(pcp_allowed_order(order))) {
 		page = rmqueue_pcplist(preferred_zone, zone, order,
 				       migratetype, alloc_flags);
@@ -4174,6 +4168,7 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
 						struct alloc_context *ac)
 {
 	bool can_direct_reclaim = gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM;
+	bool nofail = gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM;
 	bool can_compact = gfp_compaction_allowed(gfp_mask);
 	const bool costly_order = order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER;
 	struct page *page = NULL;
@@ -4187,6 +4182,25 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
 	unsigned int zonelist_iter_cookie;
 	int reserve_flags;
 
+	if (nofail) {
+		/*
+		 * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
+		 * allocate greater than order-1 page units with __GFP_NOFAIL.
+		 */
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(order > 1);
+		/*
+		 * Also we don't support __GFP_NOFAIL without __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM,
+		 * otherwise, we may result in lockup.
+		 */
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(!can_direct_reclaim);
+		/*
+		 * PF_MEMALLOC request from this context is rather bizarre
+		 * because we cannot reclaim anything and only can loop waiting
+		 * for somebody to do a work for us.
+		 */
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC);
+	}
+
 restart:
 	compaction_retries = 0;
 	no_progress_loops = 0;
@@ -4404,29 +4418,15 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
 	 * Make sure that __GFP_NOFAIL request doesn't leak out and make sure
 	 * we always retry
 	 */
-	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) {
+	if (nofail) {
 		/*
-		 * All existing users of the __GFP_NOFAIL are blockable, so warn
-		 * of any new users that actually require GFP_NOWAIT
+		 * Lacking direct_reclaim we can't do anything to reclaim memory,
+		 * we disregard these unreasonable nofail requests and still
+		 * return NULL
 		 */
-		if (WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP(!can_direct_reclaim, gfp_mask))
+		if (!can_direct_reclaim)
 			goto fail;
 
-		/*
-		 * PF_MEMALLOC request from this context is rather bizarre
-		 * because we cannot reclaim anything and only can loop waiting
-		 * for somebody to do a work for us
-		 */
-		WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC, gfp_mask);
-
-		/*
-		 * non failing costly orders are a hard requirement which we
-		 * are not prepared for much so let's warn about these users
-		 * so that we can identify them and convert them to something
-		 * else.
-		 */
-		WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP(costly_order, gfp_mask);
-
 		/*
 		 * Help non-failing allocations by giving some access to memory
 		 * reserves normally used for high priority non-blocking

> >
> > --
> > Michal Hocko
> > SUSE Labs

Thanks
Barry


  reply	other threads:[~2024-08-29 22:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 101+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-08-17  6:24 Barry Song
2024-08-17  6:24 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] vduse: avoid using __GFP_NOFAIL Barry Song
2024-08-17  6:24 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] mm: document __GFP_NOFAIL must be blockable Barry Song
2024-08-17  6:24 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] mm: BUG_ON to avoid NULL deference while __GFP_NOFAIL fails Barry Song
2024-08-19  9:43   ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-19  9:47     ` Barry Song
2024-08-19  9:55       ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-19 10:02         ` Barry Song
2024-08-19 12:33           ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-19 12:48             ` Barry Song
2024-08-19 12:49               ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-19 17:12                 ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-19 17:17                   ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-19 20:24                   ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-19 20:35                     ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-19 21:57                       ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-19 22:13                         ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-20  6:17                         ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-19 12:49             ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-08-19 12:51               ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-19 12:53                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-08-19 13:14                   ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-19 13:05                 ` Barry Song
2024-08-19 13:10                   ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-19 13:19                     ` Barry Song
2024-08-19 13:22                       ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-17  6:24 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] mm: prohibit NULL deference exposed for unsupported non-blockable __GFP_NOFAIL Barry Song
2024-08-18  2:55   ` Yafang Shao
2024-08-18  3:48     ` Barry Song
2024-08-18  5:51       ` Yafang Shao
2024-08-18  6:27         ` Barry Song
2024-08-18  6:45           ` Barry Song
2024-08-18  7:07             ` Yafang Shao
2024-08-18  7:25               ` Barry Song
2024-08-19  7:51               ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-19  7:50     ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-19  9:25       ` Yafang Shao
2024-08-19  9:39         ` Barry Song
2024-08-19  9:45           ` Yafang Shao
2024-08-19 10:10             ` Barry Song
2024-08-19 11:56               ` Yafang Shao
2024-08-19 12:09                 ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-19 12:17                   ` Yafang Shao
2024-08-19 14:01                     ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-19 10:17         ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-19 11:56           ` Yafang Shao
2024-08-19 12:04             ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-19  9:44   ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-19 10:19     ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-19 12:48       ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-19 13:02 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] mm: clarify nofail memory allocation David Hildenbrand
2024-08-19 16:05   ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-19 19:23     ` Barry Song
2024-08-19 19:33       ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-19 21:48         ` Barry Song
2024-08-20  6:24         ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-21 12:40     ` Yafang Shao
2024-08-21 22:59       ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-22  6:21         ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-22  6:40           ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-22  6:56             ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-22  7:47               ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-22  7:57                 ` Barry Song
2024-08-22  8:24                   ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-22  8:39                     ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-22  9:08                       ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-22  9:16                         ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-22  9:24                           ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-22  9:11                       ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-22  9:18                         ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-22  9:33                           ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-22  9:44                             ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-22  9:59                               ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-22 10:30                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-22 10:46                                   ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-22  9:27                         ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-22  9:34                           ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-22  9:43                             ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-22  9:53                               ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-22 11:58                                 ` Johannes Weiner
2024-08-26 12:10                             ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-08-27  6:57                               ` Linus Torvalds
2024-08-27  7:15                               ` Barry Song
2024-08-27  7:38                                 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-08-27  7:50                                   ` Barry Song
2024-08-29 10:24                                     ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-08-29 11:53                                       ` Barry Song
2024-08-29 13:20                                         ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-29 21:27                                           ` Barry Song
2024-08-29 22:31                                             ` Barry Song [this message]
2024-08-30  7:24                                               ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-30  7:37                                                 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-08-22  9:41                           ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-22  9:42                             ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-22  7:01             ` Gao Xiang
2024-08-22  7:54               ` Michal Hocko
2024-08-22  8:04                 ` Gao Xiang
2024-08-22 14:35                   ` Yafang Shao
2024-08-22 15:02                     ` Gao Xiang
2024-08-22  6:37       ` Barry Song
2024-08-22 14:22         ` 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=20240829223114.1102-1-21cnbao@gmail.com \
    --to=21cnbao@gmail.com \
    --cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=hailong.liu@oppo.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=laoar.shao@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=urezki@gmail.com \
    --cc=v-songbaohua@oppo.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=virtualization@lists.linux.dev \
    /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