From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>,
Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, percpu: do not consider sleepable allocations atomic
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:14:35 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z6zlC3juT46dLHr9@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z6zS4Dtyway78Gif@tiehlicka>
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 05:57:04PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
...
> I have gone with masking because that seemed easier to review and more
> robust solution. vmalloc does support NOFS/NOIO contexts these days (it
> will just uses scoped masking in those cases). Propagating the gfp
I see. Nice.
> throughout the worker code path is likely possible, but I haven't really
> explored that in detail to be sure. Would that be preferable even if the
> fix would be more involved?
Longer term, yeah, I think so.
> > Also, doesn't the above always prevent percpu allocations from doing fs/io
> > reclaims?
>
> Yes it does. Probably worth mentioning in the changelog. These
> allocations should be rare so having a constrained reclaim didn't really
> seem problematic to me. There should be kswapd running in the background
> with the full reclaim power.
Hmm... you'd a better judge on whether that'd be okay or not but it does
bother me that we might be increasing the chance of allocation failures for
GFP_KERNEL users at least under memory pressure.
> > ie. Shouldn't the masking only be used if the passed in gfp
> > doesn't allow fs/io?
>
> This is a good question. I have to admit that my understanding might be
> incorrect but wouldn't it be possible that we could get the lock
> dependency chain if GFP_KERNEL and scoped NOFS alloc_pcp calls are
> competing?
>
> fs/io lock
> pcpu_alloc_noprof(NOFS/NOIO)
> pcpu_alloc_noprof(GFP_KERNEL)
> pcpu_schedule_balance_work
> pcpu_alloc_mutex
> pcpu_alloc_mutex
> allocation_deadlock throgh fs/io lock
>
> This is currently not possible because constrained allocations only do
> trylock.
Right, the current locking in expansion path is really simple because it was
assuming everyone would be doing GFP_KERNEL allocation. We'd have to break
up the locking so that allocations are done outside locking, which hopefully
shouldn't be too complicated.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-12 18:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-06 12:26 Michal Hocko
2025-02-11 15:05 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-02-11 20:55 ` Tejun Heo
2025-02-12 16:57 ` Michal Hocko
2025-02-12 18:14 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2025-02-12 20:53 ` Michal Hocko
2025-02-12 21:30 ` Tejun Heo
2025-02-12 21:39 ` Dennis Zhou
2025-02-14 15:52 ` Michal Hocko
2025-02-21 2:36 ` Dennis Zhou
2025-02-21 9:48 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-03-05 15:10 ` Michal Hocko
2025-03-05 15:35 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-02-14 15:43 ` 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=Z6zlC3juT46dLHr9@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=fdmanana@suse.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.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