From: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@pankajraghav.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, willy@infradead.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel@pankajraghav.com, mcgrof@kernel.org,
gost.dev@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] xfs: remove remaining kmem interfaces and GFP_NOFS usage
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:46:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <y6sfzed3vgrgx4rmguee5np262d66iq7r7cr6k7lapth5bgk5j@v6tig3qf333p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240115230113.4080105-1-david@fromorbit.com>
>
> The first part of the series (fs/xfs/kmem.[ch] removal) is straight
> forward. We've done lots of this stuff in the past leading up to
> the point; this is just converting the final remaining usage to the
> native kernel interface. The only down-side to this is that we end
> up propagating __GFP_NOFAIL everywhere into the code. This is no big
> deal for XFS - it's just formalising the fact that all our
> allocations are __GFP_NOFAIL by default, except for the ones we
> explicity mark as able to fail. This may be a surprise of people
> outside XFS, but we've been doing this for a couple of decades now
> and the sky hasn't fallen yet.
Definetly a surprise to me. :)
I rebased my LBS patches with these changes and generic/476 started to
break in page alloc[1]:
static inline
struct page *rmqueue(struct zone *preferred_zone,
struct zone *zone, unsigned int order,
gfp_t gfp_flags, unsigned int alloc_flags,
int migratetype)
{
struct page *page;
/*
* We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
* allocate greater than order-1 page units with __GFP_NOFAIL.
*/
WARN_ON_ONCE((gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL) && (order > 1));
...
The reason for this is the call from xfs_attr_leaf.c to allocate memory
with attr->geo->blksize, which is set to 1 FSB. As 1 FSB can correspond
to order > 1 in LBS, this WARN_ON_ONCE is triggered.
This was not an issue before as xfs/kmem.c retried manually in a loop
without passing the __GFP_NOFAIL flag.
As not all calls to kmalloc in xfs_attr_leaf.c call handles ENOMEM
errors, what would be the correct approach for LBS configurations?
One possible idea is to use __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL for LBS configuration as
it will resemble the way things worked before.
Let me know your thoughts.
--
Pankaj
[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.9-rc1/source/mm/page_alloc.c#L2902
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-25 17:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-15 22:59 Dave Chinner
2024-01-15 22:59 ` [PATCH 01/12] xfs: convert kmem_zalloc() to kzalloc() Dave Chinner
2024-01-18 22:48 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-01-15 22:59 ` [PATCH 03/12] xfs: move kmem_to_page() Dave Chinner
2024-01-18 22:50 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-01-15 22:59 ` [PATCH 04/12] xfs: convert kmem_free() for kvmalloc users to kvfree() Dave Chinner
2024-01-18 22:53 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-01-15 22:59 ` [PATCH 05/12] xfs: convert remaining kmem_free() to kfree() Dave Chinner
2024-01-18 22:54 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-01-15 22:59 ` [PATCH 06/12] xfs: use an empty transaction for fstrim Dave Chinner
2024-01-18 22:55 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-01-15 22:59 ` [PATCH 07/12] xfs: use __GFP_NOLOCKDEP instead of GFP_NOFS Dave Chinner
2024-01-18 23:32 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-06-22 9:44 ` Long Li
2024-07-02 5:55 ` Dave Chinner
2024-07-02 8:00 ` Long Li
2024-01-15 22:59 ` [PATCH 08/12] xfs: use GFP_KERNEL in pure transaction contexts Dave Chinner
2024-01-18 23:38 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-01-15 22:59 ` [PATCH 09/12] xfs: place intent recovery under NOFS allocation context Dave Chinner
2024-01-18 23:39 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-01-15 22:59 ` [PATCH 10/12] xfs: place the CIL under nofs " Dave Chinner
2024-01-18 23:41 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-01-15 22:59 ` [PATCH 11/12] xfs: clean up remaining GFP_NOFS users Dave Chinner
2024-01-19 0:52 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-01-15 22:59 ` [PATCH 12/12] xfs: use xfs_defer_alloc a bit more Dave Chinner
2024-01-18 23:41 ` Darrick J. Wong
[not found] ` <20240115230113.4080105-3-david@fromorbit.com>
2024-01-18 22:50 ` [PATCH 02/12] xfs: convert kmem_alloc() to kmalloc() Darrick J. Wong
2024-03-25 17:46 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) [this message]
2024-04-01 21:30 ` [PATCH 00/12] xfs: remove remaining kmem interfaces and GFP_NOFS usage 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=y6sfzed3vgrgx4rmguee5np262d66iq7r7cr6k7lapth5bgk5j@v6tig3qf333p \
--to=kernel@pankajraghav.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=gost.dev@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.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