From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Removing GFP_NOFS
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 15:47:39 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZZzP6731XwZQnz0o@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZZcgXI46AinlcBDP@casper.infradead.org>
On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 09:17:16PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> This is primarily a _FILESYSTEM_ track topic. All the work has already
> been done on the MM side; the FS people need to do their part. It could
> be a joint session, but I'm not sure there's much for the MM people
> to say.
>
> There are situations where we need to allocate memory, but cannot call
> into the filesystem to free memory. Generally this is because we're
> holding a lock or we've started a transaction, and attempting to write
> out dirty folios to reclaim memory would result in a deadlock.
>
> The old way to solve this problem is to specify GFP_NOFS when allocating
> memory. This conveys little information about what is being protected
> against, and so it is hard to know when it might be safe to remove.
> It's also a reflex -- many filesystem authors use GFP_NOFS by default
> even when they could use GFP_KERNEL because there's no risk of deadlock.
>
> The new way is to use the scoped APIs -- memalloc_nofs_save() and
> memalloc_nofs_restore(). These should be called when we start a
> transaction or take a lock that would cause a GFP_KERNEL allocation to
> deadlock. Then just use GFP_KERNEL as normal. The memory allocators
> can see the nofs situation is in effect and will not call back into
> the filesystem.
So in rebasing the XFS kmem.[ch] removal patchset I've been working
on, there is a clear memory allocator function that we need to be
scoped: __GFP_NOFAIL.
All of the allocations done through the existing XFS kmem.[ch]
interfaces (i.e just about everything) have __GFP_NOFAIL semantics
added except in the explicit cases where we add KM_MAYFAIL to
indicate that the allocation can fail.
The result of this conversion to remove GFP_NOFS is that I'm also
adding *dozens* of __GFP_NOFAIL annotations because we effectively
scope that behaviour.
Hence I think this discussion needs to consider that __GFP_NOFAIL is
also widely used within critical filesystem code that cannot
gracefully recover from memory allocation failures, and that this
would also be useful to scope....
Yeah, I know, mm developers hate __GFP_NOFAIL. We've been using
these semantics NOFAIL in XFS for over 2 decades and the sky hasn't
fallen. So can we get memalloc_nofail_{save,restore}() so that we
can change the default allocation behaviour in certain contexts
(e.g. the same contexts we need NOFS allocations) to be NOFAIL
unless __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL or __GFP_NORETRY are set?
We already have memalloc_noreclaim_{save/restore}() for turning off
direct memory reclaim for a given context (i.e. equivalent of
clearing __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM), so if we are going to embrace scoped
allocation contexts, then we should be going all in and providing
all the contexts that filesystems actually need....
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-09 4:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-04 21:17 Matthew Wilcox
2024-01-05 10:13 ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2024-01-05 10:26 ` [Lsf-pc] " Jan Kara
2024-01-05 14:17 ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2024-01-05 14:35 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2024-01-05 10:57 ` [Lsf-pc] " Jan Kara
2024-01-08 11:47 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2024-01-08 17:39 ` David Sterba
2024-01-09 7:43 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2024-01-09 22:23 ` Dave Chinner
2024-01-09 15:47 ` Luis Henriques
2024-01-09 18:04 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2024-01-08 6:39 ` Dave Chinner
2024-01-09 4:47 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2024-02-08 16:02 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2024-02-08 17:33 ` Michal Hocko
2024-02-08 19:55 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2024-02-08 22:45 ` Kent Overstreet
2024-02-12 1:20 ` Dave Chinner
2024-02-12 2:06 ` Kent Overstreet
2024-02-12 4:35 ` Dave Chinner
2024-02-12 19:30 ` Kent Overstreet
2024-02-12 22:07 ` Dave Chinner
2024-01-09 22:44 ` Dave Chinner
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=ZZzP6731XwZQnz0o@dread.disaster.area \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.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