[01/18] mm: Track mmu notifiers in fs_reclaim_acquire/release
diff mbox series

Message ID 20200604081224.863494-2-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
State New
Headers show
Series
  • dma-fence lockdep annotations, round 2
Related show

Commit Message

Daniel Vetter June 4, 2020, 8:12 a.m. UTC
fs_reclaim_acquire/release nicely catch recursion issues when
allocating GFP_KERNEL memory against shrinkers (which gpu drivers tend
to use to keep the excessive caches in check). For mmu notifier
recursions we do have lockdep annotations since 23b68395c7c7
("mm/mmu_notifiers: add a lockdep map for invalidate_range_start/end").

But these only fire if a path actually results in some pte
invalidation - for most small allocations that's very rarely the case.
The other trouble is that pte invalidation can happen any time when
__GFP_RECLAIM is set. Which means only really GFP_ATOMIC is a safe
choice, GFP_NOIO isn't good enough to avoid potential mmu notifier
recursion.

I was pondering whether we should just do the general annotation, but
there's always the risk for false positives. Plus I'm assuming that
the core fs and io code is a lot better reviewed and tested than
random mmu notifier code in drivers. Hence why I decide to only
annotate for that specific case.

Furthermore even if we'd create a lockdep map for direct reclaim, we'd
still need to explicit pull in the mmu notifier map - there's a lot
more places that do pte invalidation than just direct reclaim, these
two contexts arent the same.

Note that the mmu notifiers needing their own independent lockdep map
is also the reason we can't hold them from fs_reclaim_acquire to
fs_reclaim_release - it would nest with the acquistion in the pte
invalidation code, causing a lockdep splat. And we can't remove the
annotations from pte invalidation and all the other places since
they're called from many other places than page reclaim. Hence we can
only do the equivalent of might_lock, but on the raw lockdep map.

With this we can also remove the lockdep priming added in 66204f1d2d1b
("mm/mmu_notifiers: prime lockdep") since the new annotations are
strictly more powerful.

Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
---
This is part of a gpu lockdep annotation series simply because it
really helps to catch issues where gpu subsystem locks and primitives
can deadlock with themselves through allocations and mmu notifiers.
But aside from that motivation it should be completely free-standing,
and can land through -mm/-rdma/-hmm or any other tree really whenever.
-Daniel
---
 mm/mmu_notifier.c |  7 -------
 mm/page_alloc.c   | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

Comments

Thomas Hellström (Intel) June 10, 2020, 12:01 p.m. UTC | #1
Hi, Daniel,

Please see below.

On 6/4/20 10:12 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> fs_reclaim_acquire/release nicely catch recursion issues when
> allocating GFP_KERNEL memory against shrinkers (which gpu drivers tend
> to use to keep the excessive caches in check). For mmu notifier
> recursions we do have lockdep annotations since 23b68395c7c7
> ("mm/mmu_notifiers: add a lockdep map for invalidate_range_start/end").
>
> But these only fire if a path actually results in some pte
> invalidation - for most small allocations that's very rarely the case.
> The other trouble is that pte invalidation can happen any time when
> __GFP_RECLAIM is set. Which means only really GFP_ATOMIC is a safe
> choice, GFP_NOIO isn't good enough to avoid potential mmu notifier
> recursion.
>
> I was pondering whether we should just do the general annotation, but
> there's always the risk for false positives. Plus I'm assuming that
> the core fs and io code is a lot better reviewed and tested than
> random mmu notifier code in drivers. Hence why I decide to only
> annotate for that specific case.
>
> Furthermore even if we'd create a lockdep map for direct reclaim, we'd
> still need to explicit pull in the mmu notifier map - there's a lot
> more places that do pte invalidation than just direct reclaim, these
> two contexts arent the same.
>
> Note that the mmu notifiers needing their own independent lockdep map
> is also the reason we can't hold them from fs_reclaim_acquire to
> fs_reclaim_release - it would nest with the acquistion in the pte
> invalidation code, causing a lockdep splat. And we can't remove the
> annotations from pte invalidation and all the other places since
> they're called from many other places than page reclaim. Hence we can
> only do the equivalent of might_lock, but on the raw lockdep map.
>
> With this we can also remove the lockdep priming added in 66204f1d2d1b
> ("mm/mmu_notifiers: prime lockdep") since the new annotations are
> strictly more powerful.
>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> ---
> This is part of a gpu lockdep annotation series simply because it
> really helps to catch issues where gpu subsystem locks and primitives
> can deadlock with themselves through allocations and mmu notifiers.
> But aside from that motivation it should be completely free-standing,
> and can land through -mm/-rdma/-hmm or any other tree really whenever.
> -Daniel
> ---
>   mm/mmu_notifier.c |  7 -------
>   mm/page_alloc.c   | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
>   2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> index 06852b896fa6..5d578b9122f8 100644
> --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> @@ -612,13 +612,6 @@ int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *subscription,
>   	lockdep_assert_held_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
>   	BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 0);
>   
> -	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)) {
> -		fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
> -		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> -		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> -		fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
> -	}
> -
>   	if (!mm->notifier_subscriptions) {
>   		/*
>   		 * kmalloc cannot be called under mm_take_all_locks(), but we
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 13cc653122b7..f8a222db4a53 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@
>   #include <trace/events/oom.h>
>   #include <linux/prefetch.h>
>   #include <linux/mm_inline.h>
> +#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
>   #include <linux/migrate.h>
>   #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
>   #include <linux/sched/rt.h>
> @@ -4124,7 +4125,7 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_fla
>   static struct lockdep_map __fs_reclaim_map =
>   	STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT("fs_reclaim", &__fs_reclaim_map);
>   
> -static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> +static bool __need_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
>   {
>   	gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask);
>   
> @@ -4136,10 +4137,6 @@ static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
>   	if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
>   		return false;
>   
> -	/* We're only interested __GFP_FS allocations for now */
> -	if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> -		return false;
> -
>   	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOLOCKDEP)
>   		return false;
>   
> @@ -4158,15 +4155,23 @@ void __fs_reclaim_release(void)
>   
>   void fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_t gfp_mask)
>   {
> -	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
> -		__fs_reclaim_acquire();
> +	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
> +		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
Hmm. Shouldn't this be "if (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)" or am I misunderstanding?
> +			__fs_reclaim_acquire();


#ifdef CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER?

> +
> +		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> +		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> +
> +	}
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_acquire);
>   
>   void fs_reclaim_release(gfp_t gfp_mask)
>   {
> -	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
> -		__fs_reclaim_release();
> +	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
> +		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
Same here?
> +			__fs_reclaim_release();
> +	}
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_release);
>   #endif

One suggested test case would perhaps be to call madvise(madv_dontneed) 
on a subpart of a transhuge page. That would IIRC trigger a page split 
and interesting mmu notifier calls....

Thanks,
Thomas
Daniel Vetter June 10, 2020, 12:25 p.m. UTC | #2
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:01 PM Thomas Hellström (Intel)
<thomas_os@shipmail.org> wrote:
>
> Hi, Daniel,
>
> Please see below.
>
> On 6/4/20 10:12 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > fs_reclaim_acquire/release nicely catch recursion issues when
> > allocating GFP_KERNEL memory against shrinkers (which gpu drivers tend
> > to use to keep the excessive caches in check). For mmu notifier
> > recursions we do have lockdep annotations since 23b68395c7c7
> > ("mm/mmu_notifiers: add a lockdep map for invalidate_range_start/end").
> >
> > But these only fire if a path actually results in some pte
> > invalidation - for most small allocations that's very rarely the case.
> > The other trouble is that pte invalidation can happen any time when
> > __GFP_RECLAIM is set. Which means only really GFP_ATOMIC is a safe
> > choice, GFP_NOIO isn't good enough to avoid potential mmu notifier
> > recursion.
> >
> > I was pondering whether we should just do the general annotation, but
> > there's always the risk for false positives. Plus I'm assuming that
> > the core fs and io code is a lot better reviewed and tested than
> > random mmu notifier code in drivers. Hence why I decide to only
> > annotate for that specific case.
> >
> > Furthermore even if we'd create a lockdep map for direct reclaim, we'd
> > still need to explicit pull in the mmu notifier map - there's a lot
> > more places that do pte invalidation than just direct reclaim, these
> > two contexts arent the same.
> >
> > Note that the mmu notifiers needing their own independent lockdep map
> > is also the reason we can't hold them from fs_reclaim_acquire to
> > fs_reclaim_release - it would nest with the acquistion in the pte
> > invalidation code, causing a lockdep splat. And we can't remove the
> > annotations from pte invalidation and all the other places since
> > they're called from many other places than page reclaim. Hence we can
> > only do the equivalent of might_lock, but on the raw lockdep map.
> >
> > With this we can also remove the lockdep priming added in 66204f1d2d1b
> > ("mm/mmu_notifiers: prime lockdep") since the new annotations are
> > strictly more powerful.
> >
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
> > Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> > Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> > ---
> > This is part of a gpu lockdep annotation series simply because it
> > really helps to catch issues where gpu subsystem locks and primitives
> > can deadlock with themselves through allocations and mmu notifiers.
> > But aside from that motivation it should be completely free-standing,
> > and can land through -mm/-rdma/-hmm or any other tree really whenever.
> > -Daniel
> > ---
> >   mm/mmu_notifier.c |  7 -------
> >   mm/page_alloc.c   | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
> >   2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> > index 06852b896fa6..5d578b9122f8 100644
> > --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> > +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> > @@ -612,13 +612,6 @@ int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *subscription,
> >       lockdep_assert_held_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> >       BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 0);
> >
> > -     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)) {
> > -             fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
> > -             lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> > -             lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> > -             fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
> > -     }
> > -
> >       if (!mm->notifier_subscriptions) {
> >               /*
> >                * kmalloc cannot be called under mm_take_all_locks(), but we
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 13cc653122b7..f8a222db4a53 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@
> >   #include <trace/events/oom.h>
> >   #include <linux/prefetch.h>
> >   #include <linux/mm_inline.h>
> > +#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
> >   #include <linux/migrate.h>
> >   #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
> >   #include <linux/sched/rt.h>
> > @@ -4124,7 +4125,7 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_fla
> >   static struct lockdep_map __fs_reclaim_map =
> >       STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT("fs_reclaim", &__fs_reclaim_map);
> >
> > -static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > +static bool __need_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> >   {
> >       gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask);
> >
> > @@ -4136,10 +4137,6 @@ static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> >       if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
> >               return false;
> >
> > -     /* We're only interested __GFP_FS allocations for now */
> > -     if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> > -             return false;
> > -
> >       if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOLOCKDEP)
> >               return false;
> >
> > @@ -4158,15 +4155,23 @@ void __fs_reclaim_release(void)
> >
> >   void fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> >   {
> > -     if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
> > -             __fs_reclaim_acquire();
> > +     if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
> > +             if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> Hmm. Shouldn't this be "if (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)" or am I misunderstanding?

Uh yes :-( I guess what saved me is that I immediately went for the
lockdep splat in drivers/gpu. And I guess there's not any obvious
inversions for GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO, and since I made the mistake
consintely the GFP_FS annotation was still consistent, but simply for
GFP_NOFS. Oops.

Will fix in the next version.

> > +                     __fs_reclaim_acquire();
>
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER?

Hm indeed. Will fix too.

Thanks for your review.

>
> > +
> > +             lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> > +             lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> > +
> > +     }
> >   }
> >   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_acquire);
> >
> >   void fs_reclaim_release(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> >   {
> > -     if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
> > -             __fs_reclaim_release();
> > +     if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
> > +             if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> Same here?
> > +                     __fs_reclaim_release();
> > +     }
> >   }
> >   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_release);
> >   #endif
>
> One suggested test case would perhaps be to call madvise(madv_dontneed)
> on a subpart of a transhuge page. That would IIRC trigger a page split
> and interesting mmu notifier calls....

The neat thing about the mmu notifier lockdep key is that we take it
whether there's notifiers or not - it's called outside of any of these
paths. So as long as you have ever hit a hugepage split somewhen since
boot, and you've hit your driver's mmu_notifier paths, lockdep will
connect the dots. Explicit testcases for all combinations not needed
anymore. This patch here just makes sure that the same holds for
memory allocations and direct reclaim (which is a lot harder to
trigger intentionally in testcases).

That was at least the idea, seems to have caught a few things already.
-Daniel

>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Qian Cai June 21, 2020, 5 p.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 10:12:07AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> fs_reclaim_acquire/release nicely catch recursion issues when
> allocating GFP_KERNEL memory against shrinkers (which gpu drivers tend
> to use to keep the excessive caches in check). For mmu notifier
> recursions we do have lockdep annotations since 23b68395c7c7
> ("mm/mmu_notifiers: add a lockdep map for invalidate_range_start/end").
> 
> But these only fire if a path actually results in some pte
> invalidation - for most small allocations that's very rarely the case.
> The other trouble is that pte invalidation can happen any time when
> __GFP_RECLAIM is set. Which means only really GFP_ATOMIC is a safe
> choice, GFP_NOIO isn't good enough to avoid potential mmu notifier
> recursion.
> 
> I was pondering whether we should just do the general annotation, but
> there's always the risk for false positives. Plus I'm assuming that
> the core fs and io code is a lot better reviewed and tested than
> random mmu notifier code in drivers. Hence why I decide to only
> annotate for that specific case.
> 
> Furthermore even if we'd create a lockdep map for direct reclaim, we'd
> still need to explicit pull in the mmu notifier map - there's a lot
> more places that do pte invalidation than just direct reclaim, these
> two contexts arent the same.
> 
> Note that the mmu notifiers needing their own independent lockdep map
> is also the reason we can't hold them from fs_reclaim_acquire to
> fs_reclaim_release - it would nest with the acquistion in the pte
> invalidation code, causing a lockdep splat. And we can't remove the
> annotations from pte invalidation and all the other places since
> they're called from many other places than page reclaim. Hence we can
> only do the equivalent of might_lock, but on the raw lockdep map.
> 
> With this we can also remove the lockdep priming added in 66204f1d2d1b
> ("mm/mmu_notifiers: prime lockdep") since the new annotations are
> strictly more powerful.
> 
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>

Reverting this commit fixed the lockdep splat below while applying some
memory pressure,

[  190.455003][  T369] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[  190.487291][  T369] 5.8.0-rc1-next-20200621 #1 Not tainted
[  190.512363][  T369] ------------------------------------------------------
[  190.543354][  T369] kswapd3/369 is trying to acquire lock:
[  190.568523][  T369] ffff889fcf694528 (&xfs_nondir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}, at: xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
spin_lock at include/linux/spinlock.h:353
(inlined by) xfs_iflags_test_and_set at fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h:166
(inlined by) xfs_iflock_nowait at fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h:249
(inlined by) xfs_reclaim_inode at fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1127
[  190.614359][  T369]
[  190.614359][  T369] but task is already holding lock:
[  190.647763][  T369] ffffffffb50ced00 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x30
__fs_reclaim_acquire at mm/page_alloc.c:4200
[  190.687845][  T369]
[  190.687845][  T369] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[  190.687845][  T369]
[  190.734890][  T369]
[  190.734890][  T369] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[  190.775991][  T369]
[  190.775991][  T369] -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
[  190.808150][  T369]        fs_reclaim_acquire+0x77/0x80
[  190.832152][  T369]        slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.52+0x20/0x120
slab_pre_alloc_hook at mm/slab.h:507
[  190.862173][  T369]        kmem_cache_alloc+0x43/0x2a0
[  190.885602][  T369]        kmem_zone_alloc+0x113/0x3ef
kmem_zone_alloc at fs/xfs/kmem.c:129
[  190.908702][  T369]        xfs_inode_item_init+0x1d/0xa0
xfs_inode_item_init at fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c:639
[  190.934461][  T369]        xfs_trans_ijoin+0x96/0x100
xfs_trans_ijoin at fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_trans_inode.c:34
[  190.961530][  T369]        xfs_setattr_nonsize+0x1a6/0xcd0
xfs_setattr_nonsize at fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c:716
[  190.987331][  T369]        xfs_vn_setattr+0x133/0x160
xfs_vn_setattr at fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c:1081
[  191.010476][  T369]        notify_change+0x6c5/0xba1
notify_change at fs/attr.c:336
[  191.033317][  T369]        chmod_common+0x19b/0x390
[  191.055770][  T369]        ksys_fchmod+0x28/0x60
[  191.077957][  T369]        __x64_sys_fchmod+0x4e/0x70
[  191.102767][  T369]        do_syscall_64+0x5f/0x310
[  191.125090][  T369]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[  191.153749][  T369]
[  191.153749][  T369] -> #0 (&xfs_nondir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}:
[  191.191267][  T369]        __lock_acquire+0x2efc/0x4da0
[  191.215974][  T369]        lock_acquire+0x1ac/0xaf0
[  191.238953][  T369]        down_write_nested+0x92/0x150
[  191.262955][  T369]        xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
[  191.287149][  T369]        xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x505/0xb00
[  191.313291][  T369]        xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr+0x93/0xd0
[  191.338357][  T369]        super_cache_scan+0x2fd/0x430
[  191.362354][  T369]        do_shrink_slab+0x317/0x990
[  191.385341][  T369]        shrink_slab+0x3a8/0x4b0
[  191.407214][  T369]        shrink_node+0x49c/0x17b0
[  191.429841][  T369]        balance_pgdat+0x59c/0xed0
[  191.455041][  T369]        kswapd+0x5a4/0xc40
[  191.477524][  T369]        kthread+0x358/0x420
[  191.499285][  T369]        ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
[  191.521107][  T369]
[  191.521107][  T369] other info that might help us debug this:
[  191.521107][  T369]
[  191.567490][  T369]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[  191.567490][  T369]
[  191.600947][  T369]        CPU0                    CPU1
[  191.624808][  T369]        ----                    ----
[  191.649236][  T369]   lock(fs_reclaim);
[  191.667607][  T369]                                lock(&xfs_nondir_ilock_class);
[  191.702096][  T369]                                lock(fs_reclaim);
[  191.731243][  T369]   lock(&xfs_nondir_ilock_class);
[  191.754025][  T369]
[  191.754025][  T369]  *** DEADLOCK ***
[  191.754025][  T369]
[  191.791126][  T369] 4 locks held by kswapd3/369:
[  191.812198][  T369]  #0: ffffffffb50ced00 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x30
[  191.854319][  T369]  #1: ffffffffb5074c50 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: shrink_slab+0x219/0x4b0
[  191.896043][  T369]  #2: ffff8890279b40e0 (&type->s_umount_key#27){++++}-{3:3}, at: trylock_super+0x11/0xb0
[  191.940538][  T369]  #3: ffff889027a73a28 (&pag->pag_ici_reclaim_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x135/0xb00
[  191.995314][  T369]
[  191.995314][  T369] stack backtrace:
[  192.022934][  T369] CPU: 42 PID: 369 Comm: kswapd3 Not tainted 5.8.0-rc1-next-20200621 #1
[  192.060546][  T369] Hardware name: HP ProLiant BL660c Gen9, BIOS I38 10/17/2018
[  192.094518][  T369] Call Trace:
[  192.109005][  T369]  dump_stack+0x9d/0xe0
[  192.127468][  T369]  check_noncircular+0x347/0x400
[  192.149526][  T369]  ? print_circular_bug+0x360/0x360
[  192.172584][  T369]  ? freezing_slow_path.cold.2+0x2a/0x2a
[  192.197251][  T369]  __lock_acquire+0x2efc/0x4da0
[  192.218737][  T369]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x550/0x550
[  192.246736][  T369]  ? __lock_acquire+0x3541/0x4da0
[  192.269673][  T369]  lock_acquire+0x1ac/0xaf0
[  192.290192][  T369]  ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
[  192.313158][  T369]  ? rcu_read_unlock+0x50/0x50
[  192.335057][  T369]  down_write_nested+0x92/0x150
[  192.358409][  T369]  ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
[  192.380890][  T369]  ? rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0xf50/0xf50
[  192.406891][  T369]  ? find_held_lock+0x33/0x1c0
[  192.427925][  T369]  ? xfs_ilock+0x2ef/0x370
[  192.447496][  T369]  ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
[  192.472315][  T369]  xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
[  192.496649][  T369]  ? xfs_inode_clear_reclaim_tag+0xa0/0xa0
[  192.524188][  T369]  ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x4f/0x250
[  192.546852][  T369]  xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x505/0xb00
[  192.570473][  T369]  ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0x860/0x860
[  192.592692][  T369]  ? mark_held_locks+0xb0/0x110
[  192.614287][  T369]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x38c/0x550
[  192.640800][  T369]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40
[  192.666695][  T369]  ? try_to_wake_up+0xcf/0xf40
[  192.688265][  T369]  ? migrate_swap_stop+0xc10/0xc10
[  192.711966][  T369]  ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x4f/0x250
[  192.735032][  T369]  xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr+0x93/0xd0
xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr at fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1399
[  192.757674][  T369]  ? xfs_reclaim_inodes+0x90/0x90
[  192.780028][  T369]  ? list_lru_count_one+0x177/0x300
[  192.803010][  T369]  super_cache_scan+0x2fd/0x430
super_cache_scan at fs/super.c:115
[  192.824491][  T369]  do_shrink_slab+0x317/0x990
do_shrink_slab at mm/vmscan.c:514
[  192.845160][  T369]  shrink_slab+0x3a8/0x4b0
shrink_slab_memcg at mm/vmscan.c:584
(inlined by) shrink_slab at mm/vmscan.c:662
[  192.864722][  T369]  ? do_shrink_slab+0x990/0x990
[  192.886137][  T369]  ? rcu_is_watching+0x2c/0x80
[  192.907289][  T369]  ? mem_cgroup_protected+0x228/0x470
[  192.931166][  T369]  ? vmpressure+0x25/0x290
[  192.950595][  T369]  shrink_node+0x49c/0x17b0
[  192.972332][  T369]  balance_pgdat+0x59c/0xed0
kswapd_shrink_node at mm/vmscan.c:3521
(inlined by) balance_pgdat at mm/vmscan.c:3670
[  192.994918][  T369]  ? __node_reclaim+0x950/0x950
[  193.018625][  T369]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x38c/0x550
[  193.046566][  T369]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x1f/0x30
[  193.070214][  T369]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x1f/0x30
[  193.093176][  T369]  ? finish_task_switch+0x129/0x650
[  193.116225][  T369]  ? finish_task_switch+0xf2/0x650
[  193.138809][  T369]  ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xc0/0xc0
[  193.163323][  T369]  kswapd+0x5a4/0xc40
[  193.182690][  T369]  ? __kthread_parkme+0x4d/0x1a0
[  193.204660][  T369]  ? balance_pgdat+0xed0/0xed0
[  193.225776][  T369]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40
[  193.252306][  T369]  ? finish_wait+0x270/0x270
[  193.272473][  T369]  ? __kthread_parkme+0x4d/0x1a0
[  193.294476][  T369]  ? __kthread_parkme+0xcc/0x1a0
[  193.316704][  T369]  ? balance_pgdat+0xed0/0xed0
[  193.337808][  T369]  kthread+0x358/0x420
[  193.355666][  T369]  ? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0xc0/0xc0
[  193.381884][  T369]  ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30

> ---
> This is part of a gpu lockdep annotation series simply because it
> really helps to catch issues where gpu subsystem locks and primitives
> can deadlock with themselves through allocations and mmu notifiers.
> But aside from that motivation it should be completely free-standing,
> and can land through -mm/-rdma/-hmm or any other tree really whenever.
> -Daniel
> ---
>  mm/mmu_notifier.c |  7 -------
>  mm/page_alloc.c   | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> index 06852b896fa6..5d578b9122f8 100644
> --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> @@ -612,13 +612,6 @@ int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *subscription,
>  	lockdep_assert_held_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
>  	BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 0);
>  
> -	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)) {
> -		fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
> -		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> -		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> -		fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
> -	}
> -
>  	if (!mm->notifier_subscriptions) {
>  		/*
>  		 * kmalloc cannot be called under mm_take_all_locks(), but we
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 13cc653122b7..f8a222db4a53 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@
>  #include <trace/events/oom.h>
>  #include <linux/prefetch.h>
>  #include <linux/mm_inline.h>
> +#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
>  #include <linux/migrate.h>
>  #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
>  #include <linux/sched/rt.h>
> @@ -4124,7 +4125,7 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_fla
>  static struct lockdep_map __fs_reclaim_map =
>  	STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT("fs_reclaim", &__fs_reclaim_map);
>  
> -static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> +static bool __need_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  {
>  	gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask);
>  
> @@ -4136,10 +4137,6 @@ static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  	if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
>  		return false;
>  
> -	/* We're only interested __GFP_FS allocations for now */
> -	if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> -		return false;
> -
>  	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOLOCKDEP)
>  		return false;
>  
> @@ -4158,15 +4155,23 @@ void __fs_reclaim_release(void)
>  
>  void fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  {
> -	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
> -		__fs_reclaim_acquire();
> +	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
> +		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> +			__fs_reclaim_acquire();
> +
> +		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> +		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> +
> +	}
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_acquire);
>  
>  void fs_reclaim_release(gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  {
> -	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
> -		__fs_reclaim_release();
> +	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
> +		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> +			__fs_reclaim_release();
> +	}
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_release);
>  #endif
> -- 
> 2.26.2
> 
>
Daniel Vetter June 21, 2020, 5:28 p.m. UTC | #4
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:01 PM Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 10:12:07AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > fs_reclaim_acquire/release nicely catch recursion issues when
> > allocating GFP_KERNEL memory against shrinkers (which gpu drivers tend
> > to use to keep the excessive caches in check). For mmu notifier
> > recursions we do have lockdep annotations since 23b68395c7c7
> > ("mm/mmu_notifiers: add a lockdep map for invalidate_range_start/end").
> >
> > But these only fire if a path actually results in some pte
> > invalidation - for most small allocations that's very rarely the case.
> > The other trouble is that pte invalidation can happen any time when
> > __GFP_RECLAIM is set. Which means only really GFP_ATOMIC is a safe
> > choice, GFP_NOIO isn't good enough to avoid potential mmu notifier
> > recursion.
> >
> > I was pondering whether we should just do the general annotation, but
> > there's always the risk for false positives. Plus I'm assuming that
> > the core fs and io code is a lot better reviewed and tested than
> > random mmu notifier code in drivers. Hence why I decide to only
> > annotate for that specific case.
> >
> > Furthermore even if we'd create a lockdep map for direct reclaim, we'd
> > still need to explicit pull in the mmu notifier map - there's a lot
> > more places that do pte invalidation than just direct reclaim, these
> > two contexts arent the same.
> >
> > Note that the mmu notifiers needing their own independent lockdep map
> > is also the reason we can't hold them from fs_reclaim_acquire to
> > fs_reclaim_release - it would nest with the acquistion in the pte
> > invalidation code, causing a lockdep splat. And we can't remove the
> > annotations from pte invalidation and all the other places since
> > they're called from many other places than page reclaim. Hence we can
> > only do the equivalent of might_lock, but on the raw lockdep map.
> >
> > With this we can also remove the lockdep priming added in 66204f1d2d1b
> > ("mm/mmu_notifiers: prime lockdep") since the new annotations are
> > strictly more powerful.
> >
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
> > Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> > Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
>
> Reverting this commit fixed the lockdep splat below while applying some
> memory pressure,

This is a broken version of the patch, please use the one Andrew
merged into -mm.

Thanks, Daniel


>
> [  190.455003][  T369] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [  190.487291][  T369] 5.8.0-rc1-next-20200621 #1 Not tainted
> [  190.512363][  T369] ------------------------------------------------------
> [  190.543354][  T369] kswapd3/369 is trying to acquire lock:
> [  190.568523][  T369] ffff889fcf694528 (&xfs_nondir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}, at: xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
> spin_lock at include/linux/spinlock.h:353
> (inlined by) xfs_iflags_test_and_set at fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h:166
> (inlined by) xfs_iflock_nowait at fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h:249
> (inlined by) xfs_reclaim_inode at fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1127
> [  190.614359][  T369]
> [  190.614359][  T369] but task is already holding lock:
> [  190.647763][  T369] ffffffffb50ced00 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x30
> __fs_reclaim_acquire at mm/page_alloc.c:4200
> [  190.687845][  T369]
> [  190.687845][  T369] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [  190.687845][  T369]
> [  190.734890][  T369]
> [  190.734890][  T369] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [  190.775991][  T369]
> [  190.775991][  T369] -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> [  190.808150][  T369]        fs_reclaim_acquire+0x77/0x80
> [  190.832152][  T369]        slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.52+0x20/0x120
> slab_pre_alloc_hook at mm/slab.h:507
> [  190.862173][  T369]        kmem_cache_alloc+0x43/0x2a0
> [  190.885602][  T369]        kmem_zone_alloc+0x113/0x3ef
> kmem_zone_alloc at fs/xfs/kmem.c:129
> [  190.908702][  T369]        xfs_inode_item_init+0x1d/0xa0
> xfs_inode_item_init at fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c:639
> [  190.934461][  T369]        xfs_trans_ijoin+0x96/0x100
> xfs_trans_ijoin at fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_trans_inode.c:34
> [  190.961530][  T369]        xfs_setattr_nonsize+0x1a6/0xcd0
> xfs_setattr_nonsize at fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c:716
> [  190.987331][  T369]        xfs_vn_setattr+0x133/0x160
> xfs_vn_setattr at fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c:1081
> [  191.010476][  T369]        notify_change+0x6c5/0xba1
> notify_change at fs/attr.c:336
> [  191.033317][  T369]        chmod_common+0x19b/0x390
> [  191.055770][  T369]        ksys_fchmod+0x28/0x60
> [  191.077957][  T369]        __x64_sys_fchmod+0x4e/0x70
> [  191.102767][  T369]        do_syscall_64+0x5f/0x310
> [  191.125090][  T369]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> [  191.153749][  T369]
> [  191.153749][  T369] -> #0 (&xfs_nondir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}:
> [  191.191267][  T369]        __lock_acquire+0x2efc/0x4da0
> [  191.215974][  T369]        lock_acquire+0x1ac/0xaf0
> [  191.238953][  T369]        down_write_nested+0x92/0x150
> [  191.262955][  T369]        xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
> [  191.287149][  T369]        xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x505/0xb00
> [  191.313291][  T369]        xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr+0x93/0xd0
> [  191.338357][  T369]        super_cache_scan+0x2fd/0x430
> [  191.362354][  T369]        do_shrink_slab+0x317/0x990
> [  191.385341][  T369]        shrink_slab+0x3a8/0x4b0
> [  191.407214][  T369]        shrink_node+0x49c/0x17b0
> [  191.429841][  T369]        balance_pgdat+0x59c/0xed0
> [  191.455041][  T369]        kswapd+0x5a4/0xc40
> [  191.477524][  T369]        kthread+0x358/0x420
> [  191.499285][  T369]        ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
> [  191.521107][  T369]
> [  191.521107][  T369] other info that might help us debug this:
> [  191.521107][  T369]
> [  191.567490][  T369]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [  191.567490][  T369]
> [  191.600947][  T369]        CPU0                    CPU1
> [  191.624808][  T369]        ----                    ----
> [  191.649236][  T369]   lock(fs_reclaim);
> [  191.667607][  T369]                                lock(&xfs_nondir_ilock_class);
> [  191.702096][  T369]                                lock(fs_reclaim);
> [  191.731243][  T369]   lock(&xfs_nondir_ilock_class);
> [  191.754025][  T369]
> [  191.754025][  T369]  *** DEADLOCK ***
> [  191.754025][  T369]
> [  191.791126][  T369] 4 locks held by kswapd3/369:
> [  191.812198][  T369]  #0: ffffffffb50ced00 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x30
> [  191.854319][  T369]  #1: ffffffffb5074c50 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: shrink_slab+0x219/0x4b0
> [  191.896043][  T369]  #2: ffff8890279b40e0 (&type->s_umount_key#27){++++}-{3:3}, at: trylock_super+0x11/0xb0
> [  191.940538][  T369]  #3: ffff889027a73a28 (&pag->pag_ici_reclaim_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x135/0xb00
> [  191.995314][  T369]
> [  191.995314][  T369] stack backtrace:
> [  192.022934][  T369] CPU: 42 PID: 369 Comm: kswapd3 Not tainted 5.8.0-rc1-next-20200621 #1
> [  192.060546][  T369] Hardware name: HP ProLiant BL660c Gen9, BIOS I38 10/17/2018
> [  192.094518][  T369] Call Trace:
> [  192.109005][  T369]  dump_stack+0x9d/0xe0
> [  192.127468][  T369]  check_noncircular+0x347/0x400
> [  192.149526][  T369]  ? print_circular_bug+0x360/0x360
> [  192.172584][  T369]  ? freezing_slow_path.cold.2+0x2a/0x2a
> [  192.197251][  T369]  __lock_acquire+0x2efc/0x4da0
> [  192.218737][  T369]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x550/0x550
> [  192.246736][  T369]  ? __lock_acquire+0x3541/0x4da0
> [  192.269673][  T369]  lock_acquire+0x1ac/0xaf0
> [  192.290192][  T369]  ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
> [  192.313158][  T369]  ? rcu_read_unlock+0x50/0x50
> [  192.335057][  T369]  down_write_nested+0x92/0x150
> [  192.358409][  T369]  ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
> [  192.380890][  T369]  ? rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0xf50/0xf50
> [  192.406891][  T369]  ? find_held_lock+0x33/0x1c0
> [  192.427925][  T369]  ? xfs_ilock+0x2ef/0x370
> [  192.447496][  T369]  ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
> [  192.472315][  T369]  xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
> [  192.496649][  T369]  ? xfs_inode_clear_reclaim_tag+0xa0/0xa0
> [  192.524188][  T369]  ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x4f/0x250
> [  192.546852][  T369]  xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x505/0xb00
> [  192.570473][  T369]  ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0x860/0x860
> [  192.592692][  T369]  ? mark_held_locks+0xb0/0x110
> [  192.614287][  T369]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x38c/0x550
> [  192.640800][  T369]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40
> [  192.666695][  T369]  ? try_to_wake_up+0xcf/0xf40
> [  192.688265][  T369]  ? migrate_swap_stop+0xc10/0xc10
> [  192.711966][  T369]  ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x4f/0x250
> [  192.735032][  T369]  xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr+0x93/0xd0
> xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr at fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1399
> [  192.757674][  T369]  ? xfs_reclaim_inodes+0x90/0x90
> [  192.780028][  T369]  ? list_lru_count_one+0x177/0x300
> [  192.803010][  T369]  super_cache_scan+0x2fd/0x430
> super_cache_scan at fs/super.c:115
> [  192.824491][  T369]  do_shrink_slab+0x317/0x990
> do_shrink_slab at mm/vmscan.c:514
> [  192.845160][  T369]  shrink_slab+0x3a8/0x4b0
> shrink_slab_memcg at mm/vmscan.c:584
> (inlined by) shrink_slab at mm/vmscan.c:662
> [  192.864722][  T369]  ? do_shrink_slab+0x990/0x990
> [  192.886137][  T369]  ? rcu_is_watching+0x2c/0x80
> [  192.907289][  T369]  ? mem_cgroup_protected+0x228/0x470
> [  192.931166][  T369]  ? vmpressure+0x25/0x290
> [  192.950595][  T369]  shrink_node+0x49c/0x17b0
> [  192.972332][  T369]  balance_pgdat+0x59c/0xed0
> kswapd_shrink_node at mm/vmscan.c:3521
> (inlined by) balance_pgdat at mm/vmscan.c:3670
> [  192.994918][  T369]  ? __node_reclaim+0x950/0x950
> [  193.018625][  T369]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x38c/0x550
> [  193.046566][  T369]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x1f/0x30
> [  193.070214][  T369]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x1f/0x30
> [  193.093176][  T369]  ? finish_task_switch+0x129/0x650
> [  193.116225][  T369]  ? finish_task_switch+0xf2/0x650
> [  193.138809][  T369]  ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xc0/0xc0
> [  193.163323][  T369]  kswapd+0x5a4/0xc40
> [  193.182690][  T369]  ? __kthread_parkme+0x4d/0x1a0
> [  193.204660][  T369]  ? balance_pgdat+0xed0/0xed0
> [  193.225776][  T369]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40
> [  193.252306][  T369]  ? finish_wait+0x270/0x270
> [  193.272473][  T369]  ? __kthread_parkme+0x4d/0x1a0
> [  193.294476][  T369]  ? __kthread_parkme+0xcc/0x1a0
> [  193.316704][  T369]  ? balance_pgdat+0xed0/0xed0
> [  193.337808][  T369]  kthread+0x358/0x420
> [  193.355666][  T369]  ? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0xc0/0xc0
> [  193.381884][  T369]  ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
>
> > ---
> > This is part of a gpu lockdep annotation series simply because it
> > really helps to catch issues where gpu subsystem locks and primitives
> > can deadlock with themselves through allocations and mmu notifiers.
> > But aside from that motivation it should be completely free-standing,
> > and can land through -mm/-rdma/-hmm or any other tree really whenever.
> > -Daniel
> > ---
> >  mm/mmu_notifier.c |  7 -------
> >  mm/page_alloc.c   | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
> >  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> > index 06852b896fa6..5d578b9122f8 100644
> > --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> > +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> > @@ -612,13 +612,6 @@ int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *subscription,
> >       lockdep_assert_held_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> >       BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 0);
> >
> > -     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)) {
> > -             fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
> > -             lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> > -             lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> > -             fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
> > -     }
> > -
> >       if (!mm->notifier_subscriptions) {
> >               /*
> >                * kmalloc cannot be called under mm_take_all_locks(), but we
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 13cc653122b7..f8a222db4a53 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@
> >  #include <trace/events/oom.h>
> >  #include <linux/prefetch.h>
> >  #include <linux/mm_inline.h>
> > +#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
> >  #include <linux/migrate.h>
> >  #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
> >  #include <linux/sched/rt.h>
> > @@ -4124,7 +4125,7 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_fla
> >  static struct lockdep_map __fs_reclaim_map =
> >       STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT("fs_reclaim", &__fs_reclaim_map);
> >
> > -static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > +static bool __need_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> >  {
> >       gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask);
> >
> > @@ -4136,10 +4137,6 @@ static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> >       if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
> >               return false;
> >
> > -     /* We're only interested __GFP_FS allocations for now */
> > -     if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> > -             return false;
> > -
> >       if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOLOCKDEP)
> >               return false;
> >
> > @@ -4158,15 +4155,23 @@ void __fs_reclaim_release(void)
> >
> >  void fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> >  {
> > -     if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
> > -             __fs_reclaim_acquire();
> > +     if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
> > +             if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> > +                     __fs_reclaim_acquire();
> > +
> > +             lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> > +             lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> > +
> > +     }
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_acquire);
> >
> >  void fs_reclaim_release(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> >  {
> > -     if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
> > -             __fs_reclaim_release();
> > +     if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
> > +             if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> > +                     __fs_reclaim_release();
> > +     }
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_release);
> >  #endif
> > --
> > 2.26.2
> >
> >
Qian Cai June 21, 2020, 5:46 p.m. UTC | #5
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 07:28:40PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:01 PM Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 10:12:07AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > fs_reclaim_acquire/release nicely catch recursion issues when
> > > allocating GFP_KERNEL memory against shrinkers (which gpu drivers tend
> > > to use to keep the excessive caches in check). For mmu notifier
> > > recursions we do have lockdep annotations since 23b68395c7c7
> > > ("mm/mmu_notifiers: add a lockdep map for invalidate_range_start/end").
> > >
> > > But these only fire if a path actually results in some pte
> > > invalidation - for most small allocations that's very rarely the case.
> > > The other trouble is that pte invalidation can happen any time when
> > > __GFP_RECLAIM is set. Which means only really GFP_ATOMIC is a safe
> > > choice, GFP_NOIO isn't good enough to avoid potential mmu notifier
> > > recursion.
> > >
> > > I was pondering whether we should just do the general annotation, but
> > > there's always the risk for false positives. Plus I'm assuming that
> > > the core fs and io code is a lot better reviewed and tested than
> > > random mmu notifier code in drivers. Hence why I decide to only
> > > annotate for that specific case.
> > >
> > > Furthermore even if we'd create a lockdep map for direct reclaim, we'd
> > > still need to explicit pull in the mmu notifier map - there's a lot
> > > more places that do pte invalidation than just direct reclaim, these
> > > two contexts arent the same.
> > >
> > > Note that the mmu notifiers needing their own independent lockdep map
> > > is also the reason we can't hold them from fs_reclaim_acquire to
> > > fs_reclaim_release - it would nest with the acquistion in the pte
> > > invalidation code, causing a lockdep splat. And we can't remove the
> > > annotations from pte invalidation and all the other places since
> > > they're called from many other places than page reclaim. Hence we can
> > > only do the equivalent of might_lock, but on the raw lockdep map.
> > >
> > > With this we can also remove the lockdep priming added in 66204f1d2d1b
> > > ("mm/mmu_notifiers: prime lockdep") since the new annotations are
> > > strictly more powerful.
> > >
> > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
> > > Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> > > Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> >
> > Reverting this commit fixed the lockdep splat below while applying some
> > memory pressure,
> 
> This is a broken version of the patch, please use the one Andrew
> merged into -mm.

Yes, since it is 5.8.0-rc1-next-20200621 which I believe it includes the
latest version from -mm. Anyway, I replied again to your latest patch,

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200621174205.GB1398@lca.pw/

> 
> Thanks, Daniel
> 
> 
> >
> > [  190.455003][  T369] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > [  190.487291][  T369] 5.8.0-rc1-next-20200621 #1 Not tainted
> > [  190.512363][  T369] ------------------------------------------------------
> > [  190.543354][  T369] kswapd3/369 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [  190.568523][  T369] ffff889fcf694528 (&xfs_nondir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}, at: xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
> > spin_lock at include/linux/spinlock.h:353
> > (inlined by) xfs_iflags_test_and_set at fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h:166
> > (inlined by) xfs_iflock_nowait at fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h:249
> > (inlined by) xfs_reclaim_inode at fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1127
> > [  190.614359][  T369]
> > [  190.614359][  T369] but task is already holding lock:
> > [  190.647763][  T369] ffffffffb50ced00 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x30
> > __fs_reclaim_acquire at mm/page_alloc.c:4200
> > [  190.687845][  T369]
> > [  190.687845][  T369] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > [  190.687845][  T369]
> > [  190.734890][  T369]
> > [  190.734890][  T369] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > [  190.775991][  T369]
> > [  190.775991][  T369] -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> > [  190.808150][  T369]        fs_reclaim_acquire+0x77/0x80
> > [  190.832152][  T369]        slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.52+0x20/0x120
> > slab_pre_alloc_hook at mm/slab.h:507
> > [  190.862173][  T369]        kmem_cache_alloc+0x43/0x2a0
> > [  190.885602][  T369]        kmem_zone_alloc+0x113/0x3ef
> > kmem_zone_alloc at fs/xfs/kmem.c:129
> > [  190.908702][  T369]        xfs_inode_item_init+0x1d/0xa0
> > xfs_inode_item_init at fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c:639
> > [  190.934461][  T369]        xfs_trans_ijoin+0x96/0x100
> > xfs_trans_ijoin at fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_trans_inode.c:34
> > [  190.961530][  T369]        xfs_setattr_nonsize+0x1a6/0xcd0
> > xfs_setattr_nonsize at fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c:716
> > [  190.987331][  T369]        xfs_vn_setattr+0x133/0x160
> > xfs_vn_setattr at fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c:1081
> > [  191.010476][  T369]        notify_change+0x6c5/0xba1
> > notify_change at fs/attr.c:336
> > [  191.033317][  T369]        chmod_common+0x19b/0x390
> > [  191.055770][  T369]        ksys_fchmod+0x28/0x60
> > [  191.077957][  T369]        __x64_sys_fchmod+0x4e/0x70
> > [  191.102767][  T369]        do_syscall_64+0x5f/0x310
> > [  191.125090][  T369]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> > [  191.153749][  T369]
> > [  191.153749][  T369] -> #0 (&xfs_nondir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}:
> > [  191.191267][  T369]        __lock_acquire+0x2efc/0x4da0
> > [  191.215974][  T369]        lock_acquire+0x1ac/0xaf0
> > [  191.238953][  T369]        down_write_nested+0x92/0x150
> > [  191.262955][  T369]        xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
> > [  191.287149][  T369]        xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x505/0xb00
> > [  191.313291][  T369]        xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr+0x93/0xd0
> > [  191.338357][  T369]        super_cache_scan+0x2fd/0x430
> > [  191.362354][  T369]        do_shrink_slab+0x317/0x990
> > [  191.385341][  T369]        shrink_slab+0x3a8/0x4b0
> > [  191.407214][  T369]        shrink_node+0x49c/0x17b0
> > [  191.429841][  T369]        balance_pgdat+0x59c/0xed0
> > [  191.455041][  T369]        kswapd+0x5a4/0xc40
> > [  191.477524][  T369]        kthread+0x358/0x420
> > [  191.499285][  T369]        ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
> > [  191.521107][  T369]
> > [  191.521107][  T369] other info that might help us debug this:
> > [  191.521107][  T369]
> > [  191.567490][  T369]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > [  191.567490][  T369]
> > [  191.600947][  T369]        CPU0                    CPU1
> > [  191.624808][  T369]        ----                    ----
> > [  191.649236][  T369]   lock(fs_reclaim);
> > [  191.667607][  T369]                                lock(&xfs_nondir_ilock_class);
> > [  191.702096][  T369]                                lock(fs_reclaim);
> > [  191.731243][  T369]   lock(&xfs_nondir_ilock_class);
> > [  191.754025][  T369]
> > [  191.754025][  T369]  *** DEADLOCK ***
> > [  191.754025][  T369]
> > [  191.791126][  T369] 4 locks held by kswapd3/369:
> > [  191.812198][  T369]  #0: ffffffffb50ced00 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x30
> > [  191.854319][  T369]  #1: ffffffffb5074c50 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: shrink_slab+0x219/0x4b0
> > [  191.896043][  T369]  #2: ffff8890279b40e0 (&type->s_umount_key#27){++++}-{3:3}, at: trylock_super+0x11/0xb0
> > [  191.940538][  T369]  #3: ffff889027a73a28 (&pag->pag_ici_reclaim_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x135/0xb00
> > [  191.995314][  T369]
> > [  191.995314][  T369] stack backtrace:
> > [  192.022934][  T369] CPU: 42 PID: 369 Comm: kswapd3 Not tainted 5.8.0-rc1-next-20200621 #1
> > [  192.060546][  T369] Hardware name: HP ProLiant BL660c Gen9, BIOS I38 10/17/2018
> > [  192.094518][  T369] Call Trace:
> > [  192.109005][  T369]  dump_stack+0x9d/0xe0
> > [  192.127468][  T369]  check_noncircular+0x347/0x400
> > [  192.149526][  T369]  ? print_circular_bug+0x360/0x360
> > [  192.172584][  T369]  ? freezing_slow_path.cold.2+0x2a/0x2a
> > [  192.197251][  T369]  __lock_acquire+0x2efc/0x4da0
> > [  192.218737][  T369]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x550/0x550
> > [  192.246736][  T369]  ? __lock_acquire+0x3541/0x4da0
> > [  192.269673][  T369]  lock_acquire+0x1ac/0xaf0
> > [  192.290192][  T369]  ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
> > [  192.313158][  T369]  ? rcu_read_unlock+0x50/0x50
> > [  192.335057][  T369]  down_write_nested+0x92/0x150
> > [  192.358409][  T369]  ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
> > [  192.380890][  T369]  ? rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0xf50/0xf50
> > [  192.406891][  T369]  ? find_held_lock+0x33/0x1c0
> > [  192.427925][  T369]  ? xfs_ilock+0x2ef/0x370
> > [  192.447496][  T369]  ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
> > [  192.472315][  T369]  xfs_reclaim_inode+0xdf/0x860
> > [  192.496649][  T369]  ? xfs_inode_clear_reclaim_tag+0xa0/0xa0
> > [  192.524188][  T369]  ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x4f/0x250
> > [  192.546852][  T369]  xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x505/0xb00
> > [  192.570473][  T369]  ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0x860/0x860
> > [  192.592692][  T369]  ? mark_held_locks+0xb0/0x110
> > [  192.614287][  T369]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x38c/0x550
> > [  192.640800][  T369]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40
> > [  192.666695][  T369]  ? try_to_wake_up+0xcf/0xf40
> > [  192.688265][  T369]  ? migrate_swap_stop+0xc10/0xc10
> > [  192.711966][  T369]  ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x4f/0x250
> > [  192.735032][  T369]  xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr+0x93/0xd0
> > xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr at fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1399
> > [  192.757674][  T369]  ? xfs_reclaim_inodes+0x90/0x90
> > [  192.780028][  T369]  ? list_lru_count_one+0x177/0x300
> > [  192.803010][  T369]  super_cache_scan+0x2fd/0x430
> > super_cache_scan at fs/super.c:115
> > [  192.824491][  T369]  do_shrink_slab+0x317/0x990
> > do_shrink_slab at mm/vmscan.c:514
> > [  192.845160][  T369]  shrink_slab+0x3a8/0x4b0
> > shrink_slab_memcg at mm/vmscan.c:584
> > (inlined by) shrink_slab at mm/vmscan.c:662
> > [  192.864722][  T369]  ? do_shrink_slab+0x990/0x990
> > [  192.886137][  T369]  ? rcu_is_watching+0x2c/0x80
> > [  192.907289][  T369]  ? mem_cgroup_protected+0x228/0x470
> > [  192.931166][  T369]  ? vmpressure+0x25/0x290
> > [  192.950595][  T369]  shrink_node+0x49c/0x17b0
> > [  192.972332][  T369]  balance_pgdat+0x59c/0xed0
> > kswapd_shrink_node at mm/vmscan.c:3521
> > (inlined by) balance_pgdat at mm/vmscan.c:3670
> > [  192.994918][  T369]  ? __node_reclaim+0x950/0x950
> > [  193.018625][  T369]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x38c/0x550
> > [  193.046566][  T369]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x1f/0x30
> > [  193.070214][  T369]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x1f/0x30
> > [  193.093176][  T369]  ? finish_task_switch+0x129/0x650
> > [  193.116225][  T369]  ? finish_task_switch+0xf2/0x650
> > [  193.138809][  T369]  ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xc0/0xc0
> > [  193.163323][  T369]  kswapd+0x5a4/0xc40
> > [  193.182690][  T369]  ? __kthread_parkme+0x4d/0x1a0
> > [  193.204660][  T369]  ? balance_pgdat+0xed0/0xed0
> > [  193.225776][  T369]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40
> > [  193.252306][  T369]  ? finish_wait+0x270/0x270
> > [  193.272473][  T369]  ? __kthread_parkme+0x4d/0x1a0
> > [  193.294476][  T369]  ? __kthread_parkme+0xcc/0x1a0
> > [  193.316704][  T369]  ? balance_pgdat+0xed0/0xed0
> > [  193.337808][  T369]  kthread+0x358/0x420
> > [  193.355666][  T369]  ? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0xc0/0xc0
> > [  193.381884][  T369]  ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
> >
> > > ---
> > > This is part of a gpu lockdep annotation series simply because it
> > > really helps to catch issues where gpu subsystem locks and primitives
> > > can deadlock with themselves through allocations and mmu notifiers.
> > > But aside from that motivation it should be completely free-standing,
> > > and can land through -mm/-rdma/-hmm or any other tree really whenever.
> > > -Daniel
> > > ---
> > >  mm/mmu_notifier.c |  7 -------
> > >  mm/page_alloc.c   | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
> > >  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> > > index 06852b896fa6..5d578b9122f8 100644
> > > --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> > > +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> > > @@ -612,13 +612,6 @@ int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *subscription,
> > >       lockdep_assert_held_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > >       BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 0);
> > >
> > > -     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)) {
> > > -             fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
> > > -             lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> > > -             lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> > > -             fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
> > > -     }
> > > -
> > >       if (!mm->notifier_subscriptions) {
> > >               /*
> > >                * kmalloc cannot be called under mm_take_all_locks(), but we
> > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > index 13cc653122b7..f8a222db4a53 100644
> > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@
> > >  #include <trace/events/oom.h>
> > >  #include <linux/prefetch.h>
> > >  #include <linux/mm_inline.h>
> > > +#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
> > >  #include <linux/migrate.h>
> > >  #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
> > >  #include <linux/sched/rt.h>
> > > @@ -4124,7 +4125,7 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_fla
> > >  static struct lockdep_map __fs_reclaim_map =
> > >       STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT("fs_reclaim", &__fs_reclaim_map);
> > >
> > > -static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > +static bool __need_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > >  {
> > >       gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask);
> > >
> > > @@ -4136,10 +4137,6 @@ static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > >       if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
> > >               return false;
> > >
> > > -     /* We're only interested __GFP_FS allocations for now */
> > > -     if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> > > -             return false;
> > > -
> > >       if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOLOCKDEP)
> > >               return false;
> > >
> > > @@ -4158,15 +4155,23 @@ void __fs_reclaim_release(void)
> > >
> > >  void fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > >  {
> > > -     if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
> > > -             __fs_reclaim_acquire();
> > > +     if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
> > > +             if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> > > +                     __fs_reclaim_acquire();
> > > +
> > > +             lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> > > +             lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
> > > +
> > > +     }
> > >  }
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_acquire);
> > >
> > >  void fs_reclaim_release(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > >  {
> > > -     if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
> > > -             __fs_reclaim_release();
> > > +     if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
> > > +             if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> > > +                     __fs_reclaim_release();
> > > +     }
> > >  }
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_release);
> > >  #endif
> > > --
> > > 2.26.2
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
index 06852b896fa6..5d578b9122f8 100644
--- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
+++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
@@ -612,13 +612,6 @@  int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *subscription,
 	lockdep_assert_held_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
 	BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 0);
 
-	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)) {
-		fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
-		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
-		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
-		fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
-	}
-
 	if (!mm->notifier_subscriptions) {
 		/*
 		 * kmalloc cannot be called under mm_take_all_locks(), but we
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 13cc653122b7..f8a222db4a53 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ 
 #include <trace/events/oom.h>
 #include <linux/prefetch.h>
 #include <linux/mm_inline.h>
+#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
 #include <linux/migrate.h>
 #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
 #include <linux/sched/rt.h>
@@ -4124,7 +4125,7 @@  should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_fla
 static struct lockdep_map __fs_reclaim_map =
 	STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT("fs_reclaim", &__fs_reclaim_map);
 
-static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
+static bool __need_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
 	gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask);
 
@@ -4136,10 +4137,6 @@  static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 	if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
 		return false;
 
-	/* We're only interested __GFP_FS allocations for now */
-	if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
-		return false;
-
 	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOLOCKDEP)
 		return false;
 
@@ -4158,15 +4155,23 @@  void __fs_reclaim_release(void)
 
 void fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
-	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
-		__fs_reclaim_acquire();
+	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
+		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
+			__fs_reclaim_acquire();
+
+		lock_map_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
+		lock_map_release(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map);
+
+	}
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_acquire);
 
 void fs_reclaim_release(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
-	if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
-		__fs_reclaim_release();
+	if (__need_reclaim(gfp_mask)) {
+		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
+			__fs_reclaim_release();
+	}
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_release);
 #endif