From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 16:54:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200929145403.GE2277@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200929090003.GG438822@phenom.ffwll.local>
On Tue 29-09-20 11:00:03, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:19:38AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > I can
> > > then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> > > call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> > > critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
> >
> > did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?
>
> Yeah I picked the wrong one of that family of functions.
>
> > > most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> > > never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> > > path than rcu code.
> >
> > Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
> > PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
> > internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
> > memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
> > Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
> > code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
> > This is not a random allocation mode.
>
> Agreed, that's why I don't like having these kind of automagic critical
> sections. It's a bit a shotgun approach. Paul said that the code would
> handle failures, but the problem is that it applies everywhere.
Ohh, in the ideal world we wouldn't need anything like that. But then
the reality fires:
* PF_MEMALLOC (resp memalloc_noreclaim_* for that matter) is primarily used
to make sure that allocations from inside the memory reclaim - yeah that
happens - will not recurse.
* PF_MEMALLOC_NO{FS,IO} (resp memalloc_no{fs,io}*) are used to mark no
fs/io reclaim recursion critical sections because controling that for
each allocation inside fs transaction (or other sensitive) or IO
contexts turned out to be unmaintainable and people simply fallen into
using NOFS/NOIO unconditionally which is causing reclaim imbalance
problems.
* PF_MEMALLOC_NOCMA (resp memalloc_nocma*) is used for long term pinning
when CMA pages cannot be pinned because that would break the CMA
guarantees. Communicating this to all potential allocations during
pinning is simply unfeasible.
So you are absolutely right that these critical sections with side
effects on all allocations are far from ideal from the API point of view
but they are mostly mirroring a demand for functionality which is
_practically_ impossible to achieve with our current code base. Not that
we couldn't get back to drawing board and come up with a saner thing and
rework the world...
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-29 14:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-14 20:42 [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 01/13] lib/debug: Remove pointless ARCH_NO_PREEMPT dependencies Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 02/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 03/13] preempt: Clenaup PREEMPT_COUNT leftovers Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-16 10:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 04/13] lockdep: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 16:11 ` Will Deacon
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 05/13] mm/pagemap: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 06/13] locking/bitspinlock: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 16:10 ` Will Deacon
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 07/13] uaccess: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 08/13] sched: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-16 10:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 09/13] ARM: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 10/13] xtensa: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 11/13] drm/i915: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 12/13] rcutorture: " Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:42 ` [patch 13/13] preempt: Remove PREEMPT_COUNT from Kconfig Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 20:54 ` [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional Steven Rostedt
2020-09-14 20:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-14 21:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-14 22:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-14 22:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 3:21 ` [PATCH] crypto: lib/chacha20poly1305 - Set SG_MITER_ATOMIC unconditionally Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 6:20 ` [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-15 6:22 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-15 6:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 7:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 17:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 8:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-15 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-15 19:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-16 18:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-16 7:37 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 15:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 18:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-09-16 20:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-17 6:38 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-16 20:29 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 20:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-16 21:43 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-16 22:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-17 7:52 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-17 16:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-29 8:19 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-29 9:00 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-09-29 14:54 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2020-09-16 19:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-09-16 20:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-15 17:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20200929145403.GE2277@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com \
--cc=bcain@codeaurora.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).