| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-id: <021601d0dc10$003a90d0$00afb270$@samsung.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:50:04 +0800
From: Chao Yu <chao2.yu@...sung.com>
To: 'Jaegeuk Kim' <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: handle failed bio allocation
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@...nel.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 11:57 PM
> To: Chao Yu
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: handle failed bio allocation
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:08:24PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > Hi Jaegeuk,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@...nel.org]
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 7:09 AM
> > > To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org;
> > > linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> > > Cc: Jaegeuk Kim
> > > Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: handle failed bio allocation
> > >
> > > As the below comment of bio_alloc_bioset, f2fs can allocate multiple bios at the
> > > same time. So, we can't guarantee that bio is allocated all the time.
> > >
> > > "
> > > * When @bs is not NULL, if %__GFP_WAIT is set then bio_alloc will always be
> > > * able to allocate a bio. This is due to the mempool guarantees. To make this
> > > * work, callers must never allocate more than 1 bio at a time from this pool.
> > > * Callers that need to allocate more than 1 bio must always submit the
> > > * previously allocated bio for IO before attempting to allocate a new one.
> > > * Failure to do so can cause deadlocks under memory pressure.
> > > "
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> > > fs/f2fs/data.c | 3 +--
> > > fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > > fs/f2fs/segment.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> > > 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > index cad9ebe..726e58b 100644
> > > --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > @@ -90,8 +90,7 @@ static struct bio *__bio_alloc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blk_addr,
> > > {
> > > struct bio *bio;
> > >
> > > - /* No failure on bio allocation */
> > > - bio = bio_alloc(GFP_NOIO, npages);
> >
> > How about using __GFP_NOFAIL flag to avoid failing in bio_alloc instead
> > of adding opencode endless loop in code?
> >
> > We can see the reason in this commit 647757197cd3
> > ("mm: clarify __GFP_NOFAIL deprecation status ")
> >
> > "__GFP_NOFAIL is documented as a deprecated flag since commit
> > 478352e789f5 ("mm: add comment about deprecation of __GFP_NOFAIL").
> >
> > This has discouraged people from using it but in some cases an opencoded
> > endless loop around allocator has been used instead. So the allocator
> > is not aware of the de facto __GFP_NOFAIL allocation because this
> > information was not communicated properly.
> >
> > Let's make clear that if the allocation context really cannot afford
> > failure because there is no good failure policy then using __GFP_NOFAIL
> > is preferable to opencoding the loop outside of the allocator."
> >
> > BTW, I found that f2fs_kmem_cache_alloc also could be replaced, we could
> > fix them together.
>
> Agreed. I think that can be another patch like this.
>
> From 1579e0d1ada96994c4ec6619fb5b5d9386e77ab3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:51:56 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: use __GFP_NOFAIL to avoid infinite loop
>
> __GFP_NOFAIL can avoid retrying the whole path of kmem_cache_alloc and
> bio_alloc.
>
> Suggested-by: Chao Yu <chao2.yu@...sung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 16 +++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> index 00591f7..c78b599 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> @@ -1244,13 +1244,10 @@ static inline void *f2fs_kmem_cache_alloc(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
> gfp_t flags)
> {
> void *entry;
> -retry:
> - entry = kmem_cache_alloc(cachep, flags);
> - if (!entry) {
> - cond_resched();
> - goto retry;
> - }
>
> + entry = kmem_cache_alloc(cachep, flags);
> + if (!entry)
> + entry = kmem_cache_alloc(cachep, flags | __GFP_NOFAIL);
The fast + slow path model looks good to me, expect one thing:
In several paths of checkpoint, caller will grab slab cache with GFP_ATOMIC,
so in slow path, our flags will be GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOFAIL, I'm not sure
that the two flags can be used together.
Should we replace GFP_ATOMIC with GFP_NOFS in flags if caller passed
GFP_ATOMIC?
Thanks,
> return entry;
> }
>
> @@ -1259,12 +1256,9 @@ static inline struct bio *f2fs_bio_alloc(int npages)
> struct bio *bio;
>
> /* No failure on bio allocation */
> -retry:
> bio = bio_alloc(GFP_NOIO, npages);
> - if (!bio) {
> - cond_resched();
> - goto retry;
> - }
> + if (!bio)
> + bio = bio_alloc(GFP_NOIO | __GFP_NOFAIL, npages);
> return bio;
> }
>
> --
> 2.1.1
--
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