Hi,
these two patches were sent as a part of a larger RFC which aims at
allowing GFP_NOFS allocations to fail to help sort out memory reclaim
issues bound to the current behavior
(http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=143876830616538&w=2).
It is clear that move to the GFP_NOFS behavior change is a long term
plan but these patches should be good enough even with that change in
place. It also seems that Chris wasn't opposed and would be willing to
take them http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=143991792427165&w=2 so here we
come. I have rephrased the changeslogs to not refer to the patch which
changes the NOFS behavior.
Just to clarify. These two patches allowed my particular testcase
(mentioned in the cover referenced above) to survive it doesn't mean
that the failing GFP_NOFS are OK now. I have seen some other places
where GFP_NOFS allocation is followed by BUG_ON(ALLOC_FAILED). I have
not encountered them though.
Let me know if you would prefer other changes.
From: Michal Hocko <[email protected]>
Btrfs relies on GFP_NOFS allocation when committing the transaction but
this allocation context is rather weak wrt. reclaim capabilities. The
page allocator currently tries hard to not fail these allocations if
they are small (<=PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) so this is not a problem
currently but there is an attempt to move away from the default no-fail
behavior and allow these allocation to fail more eagerly. And this would
lead to a pre-mature transaction abort as follows:
[ 55.328093] Call Trace:
[ 55.328890] [<ffffffff8154e6f0>] dump_stack+0x4f/0x7b
[ 55.330518] [<ffffffff8108fa28>] ? console_unlock+0x334/0x363
[ 55.332738] [<ffffffff8110873e>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x81d/0x8d4
[ 55.334910] [<ffffffff81100752>] pagecache_get_page+0x10e/0x20c
[ 55.336844] [<ffffffffa007d916>] alloc_extent_buffer+0xd0/0x350 [btrfs]
[ 55.338973] [<ffffffffa0059d8c>] btrfs_find_create_tree_block+0x15/0x17 [btrfs]
[ 55.341329] [<ffffffffa004f728>] btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x18c/0x405 [btrfs]
[ 55.343566] [<ffffffffa003fa34>] split_leaf+0x1e4/0x6a6 [btrfs]
[ 55.345577] [<ffffffffa0040567>] btrfs_search_slot+0x671/0x831 [btrfs]
[ 55.347679] [<ffffffff810682d7>] ? get_parent_ip+0xe/0x3e
[ 55.349434] [<ffffffffa0041cb2>] btrfs_insert_empty_items+0x5d/0xa8 [btrfs]
[ 55.351681] [<ffffffffa004ecfb>] __btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0x7a6/0xf35 [btrfs]
[ 55.353979] [<ffffffffa00512ea>] btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0x6e/0x226 [btrfs]
[ 55.356212] [<ffffffffa0060e21>] ? start_transaction+0x192/0x534 [btrfs]
[ 55.358378] [<ffffffffa0060e21>] ? start_transaction+0x192/0x534 [btrfs]
[ 55.360626] [<ffffffffa0060221>] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x4c/0xaba [btrfs]
[ 55.362894] [<ffffffffa0060e21>] ? start_transaction+0x192/0x534 [btrfs]
[ 55.365221] [<ffffffffa0073428>] btrfs_sync_file+0x29c/0x310 [btrfs]
[ 55.367273] [<ffffffff81186808>] vfs_fsync_range+0x8f/0x9e
[ 55.369047] [<ffffffff81186833>] vfs_fsync+0x1c/0x1e
[ 55.370654] [<ffffffff81186869>] do_fsync+0x34/0x4e
[ 55.372246] [<ffffffff81186ab3>] SyS_fsync+0x10/0x14
[ 55.373851] [<ffffffff81554f97>] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x6f
[ 55.381070] BTRFS: error (device hdb1) in btrfs_run_delayed_refs:2821: errno=-12 Out of memory
[ 55.382431] BTRFS warning (device hdb1): Skipping commit of aborted transaction.
[ 55.382433] BTRFS warning (device hdb1): cleanup_transaction:1692: Aborting unused transaction(IO failure).
[ 55.384280] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 55.384312] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 3010 at fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.c:438 btrfs_select_ref_head+0xd9/0xfe [btrfs]()
[...]
[ 55.384337] Call Trace:
[ 55.384353] [<ffffffff8154e6f0>] dump_stack+0x4f/0x7b
[ 55.384357] [<ffffffff8107f717>] ? down_trylock+0x2d/0x37
[ 55.384359] [<ffffffff81046977>] warn_slowpath_common+0xa1/0xbb
[ 55.384398] [<ffffffffa00a1d6b>] ? btrfs_select_ref_head+0xd9/0xfe [btrfs]
[ 55.384400] [<ffffffff81046a34>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x1c
[ 55.384423] [<ffffffffa00a1d6b>] btrfs_select_ref_head+0xd9/0xfe [btrfs]
[ 55.384446] [<ffffffffa004e5f7>] ? __btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0xa2/0xf35 [btrfs]
[ 55.384455] [<ffffffffa004e600>] __btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0xab/0xf35 [btrfs]
[ 55.384476] [<ffffffffa00512ea>] btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0x6e/0x226 [btrfs]
[ 55.384499] [<ffffffffa0060e21>] ? start_transaction+0x192/0x534 [btrfs]
[ 55.384521] [<ffffffffa0060e21>] ? start_transaction+0x192/0x534 [btrfs]
[ 55.384543] [<ffffffffa0060221>] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x4c/0xaba [btrfs]
[ 55.384565] [<ffffffffa0060e21>] ? start_transaction+0x192/0x534 [btrfs]
[ 55.384588] [<ffffffffa0073428>] btrfs_sync_file+0x29c/0x310 [btrfs]
[ 55.384591] [<ffffffff81186808>] vfs_fsync_range+0x8f/0x9e
[ 55.384592] [<ffffffff81186833>] vfs_fsync+0x1c/0x1e
[ 55.384593] [<ffffffff81186869>] do_fsync+0x34/0x4e
[ 55.384594] [<ffffffff81186ab3>] SyS_fsync+0x10/0x14
[ 55.384595] [<ffffffff81554f97>] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x6f
[...]
[ 55.384608] ---[ end trace c29799da1d4dd621 ]---
[ 55.437323] BTRFS info (device hdb1): forced readonly
[ 55.438815] BTRFS info (device hdb1): delayed_refs has NO entry
Fix this by being explicit about the no-fail behavior of this allocation
path and use __GFP_NOFAIL.
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <[email protected]>
---
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
index c374e1e71e5f..f4d6eea975d7 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
@@ -4607,9 +4607,7 @@ __alloc_extent_buffer(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 start,
{
struct extent_buffer *eb = NULL;
- eb = kmem_cache_zalloc(extent_buffer_cache, GFP_NOFS);
- if (eb == NULL)
- return NULL;
+ eb = kmem_cache_zalloc(extent_buffer_cache, GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL);
eb->start = start;
eb->len = len;
eb->fs_info = fs_info;
@@ -4867,7 +4865,7 @@ struct extent_buffer *alloc_extent_buffer(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
return NULL;
for (i = 0; i < num_pages; i++, index++) {
- p = find_or_create_page(mapping, index, GFP_NOFS);
+ p = find_or_create_page(mapping, index, GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL);
if (!p)
goto free_eb;
--
2.5.0
From: Michal Hocko <[email protected]>
alloc_btrfs_bio relies on GFP_NOFS allocation when committing the
transaction but this allocation context is rather weak wrt. reclaim
capabilities. The page allocator currently tries hard to not fail these
allocations if they are small (<=PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) but it can
still fail if the _current_ process is the OOM killer victim. Moreover
there is an attempt to move away from the default no-fail behavior and
allow these allocation to fail more eagerly. This would lead to:
[ 37.928625] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:4045
which is clearly undesirable and the nofail behavior should be explicit
if the allocation failure cannot be tolerated.
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <[email protected]>
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 53af23f2c087..42b9949dd71d 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -4914,9 +4914,7 @@ static struct btrfs_bio *alloc_btrfs_bio(int total_stripes, int real_stripes)
* and the stripes
*/
sizeof(u64) * (total_stripes),
- GFP_NOFS);
- if (!bbio)
- return NULL;
+ GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL);
atomic_set(&bbio->error, 0);
atomic_set(&bbio->refs, 1);
--
2.5.0
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 02:17:39PM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi,
> these two patches were sent as a part of a larger RFC which aims at
> allowing GFP_NOFS allocations to fail to help sort out memory reclaim
> issues bound to the current behavior
> (http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=143876830616538&w=2).
>
> It is clear that move to the GFP_NOFS behavior change is a long term
> plan but these patches should be good enough even with that change in
> place. It also seems that Chris wasn't opposed and would be willing to
> take them http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=143991792427165&w=2 so here we
> come. I have rephrased the changeslogs to not refer to the patch which
> changes the NOFS behavior.
>
> Just to clarify. These two patches allowed my particular testcase
> (mentioned in the cover referenced above) to survive it doesn't mean
> that the failing GFP_NOFS are OK now. I have seen some other places
> where GFP_NOFS allocation is followed by BUG_ON(ALLOC_FAILED). I have
> not encountered them though.
>
> Let me know if you would prefer other changes.
My plan is to start with these two and take more as required.
-chris