| Message ID | 20200217184613.19668-33-willy@infradead.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Change readahead API | expand |
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:46:13AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > From: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org> > > Ensure that memory allocations in the readahead path do not attempt to > reclaim file-backed pages, which could lead to a deadlock. It is > possible, though unlikely this is the root cause of a problem observed > by Cong Wang. > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org> > Reported-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> > Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> > --- > mm/readahead.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/mm/readahead.c b/mm/readahead.c > index 94d499cfb657..8f9c0dba24e7 100644 > --- a/mm/readahead.c > +++ b/mm/readahead.c > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ > #include <linux/mm_inline.h> > #include <linux/blk-cgroup.h> > #include <linux/fadvise.h> > +#include <linux/sched/mm.h> > > #include "internal.h" > > @@ -174,6 +175,18 @@ void page_cache_readahead_limit(struct address_space *mapping, > ._nr_pages = 0, > }; > > + /* > + * Partway through the readahead operation, we will have added > + * locked pages to the page cache, but will not yet have submitted > + * them for I/O. Adding another page may need to allocate memory, > + * which can trigger memory reclaim. Telling the VM we're in > + * the middle of a filesystem operation will cause it to not > + * touch file-backed pages, preventing a deadlock. Most (all?) > + * filesystems already specify __GFP_NOFS in their mapping's > + * gfp_mask, but let's be explicit here. > + */ > + unsigned int nofs = memalloc_nofs_save(); > + So doesn't this largely remove the need for all the gfp flag futzing in the readahead path? i.e. almost all readahead allocations are now going to be GFP_NOFS | GFP_NORETRY | GFP_NOWARN ? If so, shouldn't we just strip all the gfp flags and masking out of the readahead path altogether? Cheers, Dave.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 02:43:24PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:46:13AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > From: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org> > > > > Ensure that memory allocations in the readahead path do not attempt to > > reclaim file-backed pages, which could lead to a deadlock. It is > > possible, though unlikely this is the root cause of a problem observed > > by Cong Wang. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org> > > Reported-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> > > Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> > > --- > > mm/readahead.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/mm/readahead.c b/mm/readahead.c > > index 94d499cfb657..8f9c0dba24e7 100644 > > --- a/mm/readahead.c > > +++ b/mm/readahead.c > > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ > > #include <linux/mm_inline.h> > > #include <linux/blk-cgroup.h> > > #include <linux/fadvise.h> > > +#include <linux/sched/mm.h> > > > > #include "internal.h" > > > > @@ -174,6 +175,18 @@ void page_cache_readahead_limit(struct address_space *mapping, > > ._nr_pages = 0, > > }; > > > > + /* > > + * Partway through the readahead operation, we will have added > > + * locked pages to the page cache, but will not yet have submitted > > + * them for I/O. Adding another page may need to allocate memory, > > + * which can trigger memory reclaim. Telling the VM we're in > > + * the middle of a filesystem operation will cause it to not > > + * touch file-backed pages, preventing a deadlock. Most (all?) > > + * filesystems already specify __GFP_NOFS in their mapping's > > + * gfp_mask, but let's be explicit here. > > + */ > > + unsigned int nofs = memalloc_nofs_save(); > > + > > So doesn't this largely remove the need for all the gfp flag futzing > in the readahead path? i.e. almost all readahead allocations are now > going to be GFP_NOFS | GFP_NORETRY | GFP_NOWARN ? I don't think it ensures the GFP_NORETRY | GFP_NOWARN, just the GFP_NOFS part. IOW, we'll still need a readahead_gfp() macro at some point ... I don't want to add that to this already large series though. Michal also wants to kill mapping->gfp_mask, btw.
diff --git a/mm/readahead.c b/mm/readahead.c index 94d499cfb657..8f9c0dba24e7 100644 --- a/mm/readahead.c +++ b/mm/readahead.c @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ #include <linux/mm_inline.h> #include <linux/blk-cgroup.h> #include <linux/fadvise.h> +#include <linux/sched/mm.h> #include "internal.h" @@ -174,6 +175,18 @@ void page_cache_readahead_limit(struct address_space *mapping, ._nr_pages = 0, }; + /* + * Partway through the readahead operation, we will have added + * locked pages to the page cache, but will not yet have submitted + * them for I/O. Adding another page may need to allocate memory, + * which can trigger memory reclaim. Telling the VM we're in + * the middle of a filesystem operation will cause it to not + * touch file-backed pages, preventing a deadlock. Most (all?) + * filesystems already specify __GFP_NOFS in their mapping's + * gfp_mask, but let's be explicit here. + */ + unsigned int nofs = memalloc_nofs_save(); + /* * Preallocate as many pages as we will need. */ @@ -227,6 +240,7 @@ void page_cache_readahead_limit(struct address_space *mapping, if (readahead_count(&rac)) read_pages(&rac, &page_pool); BUG_ON(!list_empty(&page_pool)); + memalloc_nofs_restore(nofs); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(page_cache_readahead_limit);