[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1204270323000.11866@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...il.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, kosaki.motohiro@...il.com,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] vmalloc: add warning in __vmalloc
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Now there are several places to use __vmalloc with GFP_ATOMIC,
> GFP_NOIO, GFP_NOFS but unfortunately __vmalloc calls map_vm_area
> which calls alloc_pages with GFP_KERNEL to allocate page tables.
> It means it's possible to happen deadlock.
> I don't know why it doesn't have reported until now.
>
> Firstly, I tried passing gfp_t to lower functions to support __vmalloc
> with such flags but other mm guys don't want and decided that
> all of caller should be fixed.
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=133517143616544&w=2
>
> To begin with, let's listen other's opinion whether they can fix it
> by other approach without calling __vmalloc with such flags.
>
> So this patch adds warning to detect and to be fixed hopely.
> I Cced related maintainers.
> If I miss someone, please Cced them.
>
> side-note:
> I added WARN_ON instead of WARN_ONCE to detect all of callers
> and each WARN_ON for each flag to detect to use any flag easily.
> After we fix all of caller or reduce such caller, we can merge
> a warning with WARN_ONCE.
>
I disagree with this approach since it's going to violently spam an
innocent kernel user's log with no ratelimiting and for a situation that
actually may not be problematic.
Passing any of these bits (the difference between GFP_KERNEL and
GFP_ATOMIC) only means anything when we're going to do reclaim. And I'm
suspecting we would have seen problems with this already since
pte_alloc_kernel() does __GFP_REPEAT on most architectures meaning that it
will loop infinitely in the page allocator until at least one page is
freed (since its an order-0 allocation) which would hardly ever happen if
__GFP_FS or __GFP_IO actually meant something in this context.
In other words, we would already have seen these deadlocks and it would
have been diagnosed as a vmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC) problem. Where are those bug
reports?
At best, you'd need _some_ sort of ratelimiting like a static variable and
only allowing 100 WARN_ON()s which could output dozens of lines for each
call to vmalloc().
But the page allocator already has a might_sleep_if(gfp_mask & GFP_WAIT)
which will dump the stack for CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP. So for this
effect, just enable that config option and check your kernel log.
So I'm afraid this is complete overkill for something that we can't prove
is a problem in the first place and will potentially fill the kernel logs
for warnings where the allocation succeeds immediately. If you want the
bug reports, ask people to enable CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists