Message-Id: <A9B287B0-1CDA-4E55-A1D7-46D4BAE16C7F@dilger.ca>
Date:	Wed, 5 Aug 2015 13:58:50 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To:	mhocko@...nel.org
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Allow GFP_NOFS allocation to fail

On Aug 5, 2015, at 3:51 AM, mhocko@...nel.org wrote:
> Hi,
> small GFP_NOFS, like GFP_KERNEL, allocations have not been not failing
> traditionally even though their reclaim capabilities are restricted
> because the VM code cannot recurse into filesystems to clean dirty
> pages. At the same time these allocation requests do not allow to
> trigger the OOM killer because that would lead to pre-mature OOM killing
> during heavy fs metadata workloads.
> 
> This leaves the VM code in an unfortunate situation where GFP_NOFS
> requests is looping inside the allocator relying on somebody else to
> make a progress on its behalf. This is prone to deadlocks when the
> request is holding resources which are necessary for other task to make
> a progress and release memory (e.g. OOM victim is blocked on the lock
> held by the NONFS request). Another drawback is that the caller of
> the allocator cannot define any fallback strategy because the request
> doesn't fail.
> 
> As the VM cannot do much about these requests we should face the reality
> and allow those allocations to fail. Johannes has already posted the
> patch which does that (http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=142726428514236&w=2)
> but the discussion died pretty quickly.
> 
> I was playing with this patch and xfs, ext[34] and btrfs for a while
> to see what is the effect under heavy memory pressure. As expected
> this led to some fallouts.
> 
> My test consisted of a simple memory hog which allocates a lot of
> anonymous memory and writes to a fs mainly to trigger a fs activity on
> exit. In parallel there is a parallel fs metadata load (multiple tasks
> creating thousands of empty files and directories). All is running
> in a VM with small amount of memory to emulate an under provisioned
> system. The metadata load is triggering a sufficient load to invoke
> the direct reclaim even without the memory hog. The memory hog forks
> several tasks sharing the VM and OOM killer manages to kill it without 
> locking up the system (this was based on the test case from Tetsuo
> Handa - http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg82958.html -
> I just didn't want to kill my machine ;)).
> 
> With all the patches applied none of the 4 filesystems gets aborted
> transactions and RO remount (well xfs didn't need any special
> treatment). This is obviously not sufficient to claim that failing
> GFP_NOFS is OK now but I think it is a good start for the further
> discussion. I would be grateful if FS people could have a look at
> those patches.  I have simply used __GFP_NOFAIL in the critical paths. 
> This might be not the best strategy but it sounds like a good first
> step.
> 
> The first patch in the series also allows __GFP_NOFAIL allocations to
> access memory reserves when the system is OOM which should help those
> requests to make a forward progress - especially in combination with
> GFP_NOFS.
> 
> The second patch tries to address a potential pre-mature OOM killer
> from the page fault path. I have posted it separately but it didn't
> get much traction.
> 
> The third patch allows GFP_NOFS to fail and I believe it should see
> much more testing coverage. It would be really great if it could sit
> in the mmotm tree for few release cycles so that we can catch more
> fallouts.
> 
> The rest are the FS specific patches to fortify allocations
> requests which are really needed to finish transactions without RO
> remounts. There might be more needed but my test case survives with
> these in place.

Wouldn't it make more sense to order the fs-specific patches _before_
the "GFP_NOFS can fail" patch (#3), so that once that patch is applied
all known failures have already been fixed?  Otherwise it could show
test failures during bisection that would be confusing.

Cheers, Andreas

> They would obviously need some rewording if they are going to be
> applied even without Patch3 and I will do that if respective
> maintainers will take them. Ext3 and JBD are going away soon so they
> might be dropped but they have been in the tree while I was testing
> so I've kept them.
> 
> Thoughts? Opinions?
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Cheers, Andreas





--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists