From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 18:28:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YXgsxF/NRlHjH+Ng@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+KHdyVqOuKny7bT+CtrCk8BrnARYz744Ze6cKMuy2BXo5e7jw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue 26-10-21 17:48:32, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> >
> > Dave Chinner has mentioned that some of the xfs code would benefit from
> > kvmalloc support for __GFP_NOFAIL because they have allocations that
> > cannot fail and they do not fit into a single page.
> >
> > The larg part of the vmalloc implementation already complies with the
> > given gfp flags so there is no work for those to be done. The area
> > and page table allocations are an exception to that. Implement a retry
> > loop for those.
> >
> > Add a short sleep before retrying. 1 jiffy is a completely random
> > timeout. Ideally the retry would wait for an explicit event - e.g.
> > a change to the vmalloc space change if the failure was caused by
> > the space fragmentation or depletion. But there are multiple different
> > reasons to retry and this could become much more complex. Keep the retry
> > simple for now and just sleep to prevent from hogging CPUs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > ---
> > mm/vmalloc.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > index c6cc77d2f366..602649919a9d 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > @@ -2941,8 +2941,12 @@ static void *__vmalloc_area_node(struct vm_struct *area, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > else if ((gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS | __GFP_IO)) == 0)
> > flags = memalloc_noio_save();
> >
> > - ret = vmap_pages_range(addr, addr + size, prot, area->pages,
> > + do {
> > + ret = vmap_pages_range(addr, addr + size, prot, area->pages,
> > page_shift);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> > + } while ((gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) && (ret < 0));
> >
>
> 1.
> After that change a below code:
>
> <snip>
> if (ret < 0) {
> warn_alloc(orig_gfp_mask, NULL,
> "vmalloc error: size %lu, failed to map pages",
> area->nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE);
> goto fail;
> }
> <snip>
>
> does not make any sense anymore.
Why? Allocations without __GFP_NOFAIL can still fail, no?
> 2.
> Can we combine two places where we handle __GFP_NOFAIL into one place?
> That would look like as more sorted out.
I have to admit I am not really fluent at vmalloc code so I wanted to
make the code as simple as possible. How would I unwind all the allocated
memory (already allocated as GFP_NOFAIL) before retrying at
__vmalloc_node_range (if that is what you suggest). And isn't that a
bit wasteful?
Or did you have anything else in mind?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-26 16:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-25 15:02 [PATCH 0/4] extend vmalloc support for constrained allocations Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 15:02 ` [PATCH 1/4] mm/vmalloc: alloc GFP_NO{FS,IO} for vmalloc Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 15:02 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 22:59 ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26 7:03 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-26 10:30 ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26 11:29 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-26 15:48 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-10-26 16:28 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2021-10-26 19:33 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-10-27 6:46 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-27 17:55 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-10-29 7:57 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-29 14:05 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-10-29 14:45 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-29 17:23 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2021-10-25 15:02 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm/vmalloc: be more explicit about supported gfp flags Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 23:26 ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26 7:10 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-26 10:43 ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26 12:20 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 15:02 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm: allow !GFP_KERNEL allocations for kvmalloc Michal Hocko
2021-10-25 23:34 ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26 7:15 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-26 10:48 ` NeilBrown
2021-10-26 12:23 ` Michal Hocko
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=YXgsxF/NRlHjH+Ng@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=idryomov@gmail.com \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=urezki@gmail.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