linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [4.15-rc9] fs_reclaim lockdep trace
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:25:29 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7771dd55-2655-d3a9-80ee-24c9ada7dbbe@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d726458d-3d3b-5580-ddfc-2914cbf756ba@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>

On 2018/01/28 10:16, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 08:36:51PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>>>  > Just triggered this on a server I was rsync'ing to.
>>>
>>> Actually, I can trigger this really easily, even with an rsync from one
>>> disk to another.  Though that also smells a little like networking in
>>> the traces. Maybe netdev has ideas.
>>
>> Is this new to 4.15? Or is it just that you're testing something new?
>>
>> If it's new and easy to repro, can you just bisect it? And if it isn't
>> new, can you perhaps check whether it's new to 4.14 (ie 4.13 being
>> ok)?
>>
>> Because that fs_reclaim_acquire/release() debugging isn't new to 4.15,
>> but it was rewritten for 4.14.. I'm wondering if that remodeling ended
>> up triggering something.
> 
> --- linux-4.13.16/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ linux-4.14.15/mm/page_alloc.c

Oops. This output was inverted.

> @@ -3527,53 +3519,12 @@
>  			return true;
>  	}
>  	return false;
>  }
>  #endif /* CONFIG_COMPACTION */
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> -struct lockdep_map __fs_reclaim_map =
> -	STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT("fs_reclaim", &__fs_reclaim_map);
> -
> -static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> -{
> -	gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask);
> -
> -	/* no reclaim without waiting on it */
> -	if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM))
> -		return false;
> -
> -	/* this guy won't enter reclaim */
> -	if ((current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMALLOC))
> -		return false;

Since __kmalloc_reserve() from __alloc_skb() adds __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN
to gfp_mask, __need_fs_reclaim() is failing to return false here.

But why checking __GFP_NOMEMALLOC here? __alloc_pages_slowpath() skips direct
reclaim if !(gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) or (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC),
doesn't it?

----------
static inline struct page *
__alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
                                                struct alloc_context *ac)
{
(...snipped...)
        /* Caller is not willing to reclaim, we can't balance anything */
        if (!can_direct_reclaim)
                goto nopage;

        /* Avoid recursion of direct reclaim */
        if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
                goto nopage;

        /* Try direct reclaim and then allocating */
        page = __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim(gfp_mask, order, alloc_flags, ac,
                                                        &did_some_progress);
        if (page)
                goto got_pg;
(...snipped...)
}
----------

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-28  4:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-24  1:36 Dave Jones
2018-01-27 22:24 ` Dave Jones
2018-01-27 22:43   ` Linus Torvalds
2018-01-28  1:16     ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-01-28  4:25       ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2018-01-28  5:55         ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-01-29  2:43           ` Dave Jones
2018-01-29 10:27           ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-29 11:47             ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-01-29 13:55               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-01 11:36                 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-02-08 11:43                   ` [PATCH v2] lockdep: Fix fs_reclaim warning Tetsuo Handa
2018-02-12 12:08                     ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-02-12 13:46                       ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-02-19 11:52                     ` Tetsuo Handa

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=7771dd55-2655-d3a9-80ee-24c9ada7dbbe@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=davej@codemonkey.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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