linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] usb: host: u132-hcd: Remove deprecated create_singlethread

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1470132203.30985.16.camel@suse.com>
Date:	Tue, 02 Aug 2016 12:03:23 +0200
From:	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:	Geliang Tang <geliangtang@....com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@...il.com>,
	"GeyslanG.Bem@...yakshetra" <geyslan@...il.com>,
	Masanari Iida <standby24x7@...il.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	Saurabh Karajgaonkar <skarajga@...teon.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] usb: host: u132-hcd: Remove deprecated
 create_singlethread_workqueue

On Tue, 2016-08-02 at 10:18 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 02-08-16 10:06:12, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 10:20 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > 
> > > > If any real IO depends on those devices then this is not sufficient and
> > > > they need some form of guarantee for progress (aka mempool).
> > > 
> > > Oliver, Alan, what do you think?  If USB itself can't operate without
> > > allocating memory during transactions, whatever USB storage drivers
> > 
> > It cannot. The IO must be described to the hardware with a data
> > structure in memory.
> > 
> > > are doing isn't all that meaningful.  Can we proceed with the
> > > workqueue patches?  Also, it could be that the only thing GFP_NOIO and
> > > GFP_ATOMIC are doing is increasing the chance of IO failures under
> > > memory pressure.  Maybe it'd be a good idea to reconsider the
> > > approach?
> > 
> > We had actual deadlocks with GFP_KERNEL. It seems to me that the SCSI
> > layer can deal with IO that cannot be completed due to a lack of memory
> > at least somewhat, but a deadlock within a driver would obviously be
> > deadly. So I don't think that mempools would remove the need for
> > GFP_NOIO as there are places in usbcore we cannot enter the page
> > laundering path from. They are an additional need.
> 
> OK, I guess there is some misunderstanding here. I believe that Tejun
> wasn't arguing to drop GFP_NOIO. It might be really needed for the dead
> lock avoidance. No question about that. The whole point is that
> WQ_RECLAIM might be completely pointless because a rescuer wouldn't help
> much if the work item would do GFP_NOIO and get stuck in the page
> allocator.

But that can be a problem only if the items on the work queue are
actually run and without WQ_MEM_RECLAIM that guarantee cannot be made.
We can deal with failures of memory allocation. But the requests
must actually terminate.

	Regards
		Oliver