From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-f200.google.com (mail-qt0-f200.google.com [209.85.216.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79042802FE for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 20:36:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-f200.google.com with SMTP id m54so62889161qtb.9 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com. [209.132.183.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f79si8892591qke.210.2017.06.30.17.36.26 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:36:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 20:36:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Mikulas Patocka Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmalloc: respect the GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS flags In-Reply-To: <20170630204059.GA17255@dhcp22.suse.cz> Message-ID: References: <20170630081245.GA22917@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170630204059.GA17255@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrew Morton , Stephen Rothwell , Vlastimil Babka , Andreas Dilger , John Hubbard , David Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 30 Jun 2017, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 30-06-17 14:11:57, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Jun 2017, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On Thu 29-06-17 22:25:09, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > > The __vmalloc function has a parameter gfp_mask with the allocation flags, > > > > however it doesn't fully respect the GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS flags. The > > > > pages are allocated with the specified gfp flags, but the pagetables are > > > > always allocated with GFP_KERNEL. This allocation can cause unexpected > > > > recursion into the filesystem or I/O subsystem. > > > > > > > > It is not practical to extend page table allocation routines with gfp > > > > flags because it would require modification of architecture-specific code > > > > in all architecturs. However, the process can temporarily request that all > > > > allocations are done with GFP_NOFS or GFP_NOIO with with the functions > > > > memalloc_nofs_save and memalloc_noio_save. > > > > > > > > This patch makes the vmalloc code use memalloc_nofs_save or > > > > memalloc_noio_save if the supplied gfp flags do not contain __GFP_FS or > > > > __GFP_IO. It fixes some possible deadlocks in drivers/mtd/ubi/io.c, > > > > fs/gfs2/, fs/btrfs/free-space-tree.c, fs/ubifs/, > > > > fs/nfs/blocklayout/extent_tree.c where __vmalloc is used with the GFP_NOFS > > > > flag. > > > > > > I strongly believe this is a step in the _wrong_ direction. Why? Because > > > > What do you think __vmalloc with GFP_NOIO should do? Print a warning? > > Silently ignore the GFP_NOIO flag? > > I think noio users are not that much different from nofs users. Simply > use the scope API at the place where the scope starts and document why > it is needed. vmalloc calls do not have to be any special then and they > do not even have to think about proper gfp flags and they can use > whatever is the default. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs But you didn't answer the question - what should __vmalloc with GFP_NOIO (or GFP_NOFS) do? Silently drop the flag? Print a warning? Or respect the flag? Currently, it silently drops the GFP_NOIO or GFP_NOFS flag, but some programmers don't know it and use these flags. You can't blame those programmers for not knowing it. Mikulas -- 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: email@kvack.org