Message-id: <163486138482.17149.3261315484384960888@noble.neil.brown.name>
Date:   Fri, 22 Oct 2021 11:09:44 +1100
From:   "NeilBrown" <neilb@...e.de>
To:     "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     "Dave Chinner" <david@...morbit.com>,
        "Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        "Andreas Dilger" <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        "Matthew Wilcox" <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Mel Gorman" <mgorman@...e.de>, "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] MM: improve documentation for __GFP_NOFAIL

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 19-10-21 15:32:27, Neil Brown wrote:

[clip looks of discussion where we are largely in agreement - happy to
 see that!]

> > Presumably there is a real risk of deadlock if we just remove the
> > memory-reserves boosts of __GFP_NOFAIL.  Maybe it would be safe to
> > replace all current users of __GFP_NOFAIL with __GFP_NOFAIL|__GFP_HIGH,
> > and then remove the __GFP_HIGH where analysis suggests there is no risk
> > of deadlocks.
> 
> I would much rather not bind those together and go other way around. If
> somebody can actually hit deadlocks (those are quite easy to spot as
> they do not go away) then we can talk about how to deal with them.
> Memory reserves can help only > < this much.

I recall maybe 10 years ago Linus saying that he preferred simplicity to
mathematical provability for handling memory deadlocks (or something
like that).  I lean towards provability myself, but I do see the other
perspective.
We have mempools and they can provide strong guarantees (though they are
often over-allocated I think).  But they can be a bit clumsy.  I believe
that DaveM is strong against anything like that in the network layer, so
we strongly depend on GFP_MEMALLOC functionality for swap-over-NFS.  I'm
sure it is important elsewhere too.

Of course __GFP_HIGH and __GFP_ATOMIC provide an intermediate priority
level - more likely to fail than __GFP_MEMALLOC.  I suspect they should
not be seen as avoiding deadlock, only as improving service.  So using
them when we cannot wait might make sense, but there are probably other
circumstances.

> > Why is __GFP_NOFAIL better?
> 
> Because the allocator can do something if it knows that the allocation
> cannot fail. E.g. give such an allocation a higher priority over those
> that are allowed to fail. This is not limited to memory reserves,
> although this is the only measure that is implemented currently IIRC.
> On the other hand if there is something interesting the caller can do
> directly - e.g. do internal object management like mempool does - then
> it is better to retry at that level.

It *can* do something, but I don't think it *should* do something - not
if that could have a negative impact on other threads.  Just because I
cannot fail, that doesn't mean someone else should fail to help me.
Maybe I should just wait longer.

> 
> > >  * Using this flag for costly allocations is _highly_ discouraged.
> > 
> > This is unhelpful.  Saying something is "discouraged" carries an implied
> > threat.  This is open source and threats need to be open.
> > Why is it discouraged? IF it is not forbidden, then it is clearly
> > permitted.  Maybe there are costs  - so a clear statement of those costs
> > would be appropriate.
> > Also, what is a suitable alternative?
> > 
> > Current code will trigger a WARN_ON, so it is effectively forbidden.
> > Maybe we should document that __GFP_NOFAIL is forbidden for orders above
> > 1, and that vmalloc() should be used instead (thanks for proposing that
> > patch!).
> 
> I think we want to recommend kvmalloc as an alternative once vmalloc is
> NOFAIL aware.
> 
> I will skip over some of the specific regarding SLAB and NOFS usage if
> you do not mind and focus on points that have direct documentation
> consequences. Also I do not feel qualified commenting on neither SLAB
> nor FS internals.
> 
> [...]
> > There is a lot of stuff there.... the bits that are important to me are:
> > 
> >  - why is __GFP_NOFAIL preferred? It is a valuable convenience, but I
> >    don't see that it is necessary
> 
> I think it is preferred for one and a half reasons. It tells allocator
> that this allocation cannot really fail and the caller doesn't have a
> very good/clever retry policy (e.g. like mempools mentioned above). The
> half reason would be for tracking purposes (git grep __GFP_NOFAIL) is
> easier than trying to catch all sorts of while loops over allocation
> which do not do anything really interesting.

I think the one reason is misguided, as described above.
I think the half reason is good, and that we should introduce
   memalloc_retry_wait()
and encourage developers to use that for any memalloc retry loop.
__GFP_NOFAIL would then be a convenience flag which causes the allocator
(slab or alloc_page or whatever) to call memalloc_retry_wait() and do
the loop internally.
What exactly memalloc_retry_wait() does (if anything) can be decided
separately and changed as needed.

> >  - is it reasonable to use __GFP_HIGH when looping if there is a risk of
> >    deadlock?
> 
> As I've said above. Memory reserves are a finite resource and as such
> they cannot fundamentally solve deadlocks. They can help prioritize
> though.

To be fair, they can solve 1 level of deadlock.  i.e. if you only need
to make one allocation to guarantee progress, then allocating from
reserves can help.  If you might need to make a second allocation
without freeing the first - then a single reserve pool can provide
guarantees (which is why we use mempool is layered block devices - md
over dm over loop of scsi).

> 
> >  - Will __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM always result in a delay before failure? In
> >    that case it should be safe to loop around allocations using
> >    __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM without needing congestion_wait() (so it can
> >    just be removed.
> 
> This is a good question and I do not think we have that documented
> anywhere. We do cond_resched() for sure. I do not think we guarantee a
> sleeping point in general. Maybe we should, I am not really sure.

If we add memalloc_retry_wait(), it wouldn't matter.  We would only need
to ensure that memalloc_retry_wait() waited if page_alloc didn't.


I think we should:
 - introduce memalloc_retry_wait() and use it for all malloc retry loops
   including __GFP_NOFAIL
 - drop all the priority boosts added for __GFP_NOFAIL
 - drop __GFP_ATOMIC and change all the code that tests for __GFP_ATOMIC
   to instead test for __GFP_HIGH.  __GFP_ATOMIC is NEVER used without
   __GFP_HIGH.  This give a slight boost to several sites that use
   __GFP_HIGH explicitly.
 - choose a consistent order threshold for disallowing __GFP_NOFAIL
   (rmqueue uses "order > 1", __alloc_pages_slowpath uses
    "order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER"), test it once - early - and
   document kvmalloc as an alternative.  Code can also loop if there
   is an alternative strategy for freeing up memory.

Thanks,
NeilBrown


Thanks,
NeilBrown

Powered by blists - more mailing lists