Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:22f:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 15csp1116378pxk; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 01:08:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyp/cYEo9y9//EkbybUNN2pe5COPSbW8oixx9mmiKmyVANj+5itD9MOBpv+6qsM3i6f0o+X X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:b01a:: with SMTP id v26mr1126574ejy.166.1601626101550; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:08:21 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1601626101; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Gex9lHCCW14/rFsFzWYBSeHlisDBaT8px/tZvtvSvB5ihSMkgmPy1CicHoQ0L+67vI Ycz0UwBQwZZrhgGCdhyhqMRZ8zYpFqoDoPrtokcDdOmWzfeP6htMHh/3FLgqFUMTmdb7 sPx04E6YGbCR8tHwcCS3ojXIC1IM/RWtF1Wl/0BAcl674ShG3DCg9hWj0+m4etI71Vv1 4OfsXtjsvbATYf5RtGQZagQ1Od5o6/OaOf3VBTj97BYYpISnJgRqJ2iN5X2zuERgf+6V GX+5+mcoQC+qXjWnUdTuwbPBO+vap9e6sFr/TiCuV1Fmlpi7ui9POIht952QfnIjXvoI X83Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=Q4kKHkdOZeroVcc9GVk6MwopXESLHWaCVq5HVjEPrbI=; b=UDU/GckFj+2bT5GmIbvgqxtaqB2iDsPuCTnjBu43v2lGFARjd0zJlv7PRQ6mHiF6pS VEku+0rfMvK8aSmH6aIMEpZS9fv80cTxu3sDmjrP3bLusKmfqPoQ0gGKKSe6wJ0CP4Sy mreuWzZVnR5LT1ptgMlL4/80u4WorkFfgsyTF9v+BEFCc08lf1c0isJL4Rh0dieI2W3V xLPw0RZ0KKhkn1uQg/Ue2f/Oo0CfJkDqg21RgYdtXGRaXUFF4ftmnZwDi5VT4Hu7hNIq 5fTpxFEhf4bgLu15DlFscQpuinRNcj8xVPl4QFRsAJ6o1W9P40XmQimhgSvHsvAj1Lub Nmaw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id yd11si581142ejb.184.2020.10.02.01.07.59; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:08:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726270AbgJBIGb (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 2 Oct 2020 04:06:31 -0400 Received: from outbound-smtp36.blacknight.com ([46.22.139.219]:47789 "EHLO outbound-smtp36.blacknight.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726238AbgJBIGa (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2020 04:06:30 -0400 Received: from mail.blacknight.com (pemlinmail05.blacknight.ie [81.17.254.26]) by outbound-smtp36.blacknight.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7B1B190C for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 09:06:27 +0100 (IST) Received: (qmail 20516 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2020 08:06:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO techsingularity.net) (mgorman@techsingularity.net@[84.203.22.4]) by 81.17.254.9 with ESMTPSA (AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 2 Oct 2020 08:06:27 -0000 Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 09:06:24 +0100 From: Mel Gorman To: Uladzislau Rezki Cc: Vlastimil Babka , LKML , RCU , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , "Paul E . McKenney" , Peter Zijlstra , Michal Hocko , Thomas Gleixner , "Theodore Y . Ts'o" , Joel Fernandes , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Oleksiy Avramchenko Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 2/4] mm: Add __rcu_alloc_page_lockless() func. Message-ID: <20201002080624.GB3227@techsingularity.net> References: <20200918194817.48921-1-urezki@gmail.com> <20200918194817.48921-3-urezki@gmail.com> <38f42ca1-ffcd-04a6-bf11-618deffa897a@suse.cz> <20200929220742.GB8768@pc636> <795d6aea-1846-6e08-ac1b-dbff82dd7133@suse.cz> <20201001192626.GA29606@pc636> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201001192626.GA29606@pc636> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 09:26:26PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > No, I meant going back to idea of new gfp flag, but adjust the implementation in > > the allocator (different from what you posted in previous version) so that it > > only looks at the flag after it tries to allocate from pcplist and finds out > > it's empty. So, no inventing of new page allocator entry points or checks such > > as the one you wrote above, but adding the new gfp flag in a way that it doesn't > > affect existing fast paths. > > > OK. Now i see. Please have a look below at the patch, so we fully understand > each other. If that is something that is close to your view or not: > > > t a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h > index c603237e006c..7e613560a502 100644 > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h > @@ -39,8 +39,9 @@ struct vm_area_struct; > #define ___GFP_HARDWALL 0x100000u > #define ___GFP_THISNODE 0x200000u > #define ___GFP_ACCOUNT 0x400000u > +#define ___GFP_NO_LOCKS 0x800000u > #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP > -#define ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP 0x800000u > +#define ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP 0x1000000u > #else > #define ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP 0 > #endif > @@ -215,16 +216,22 @@ struct vm_area_struct; > * %__GFP_COMP address compound page metadata. > * > * %__GFP_ZERO returns a zeroed page on success. > + * > + * %__GFP_NO_LOCKS order-0 allocation without sleepable-locks. > + * It obtains a page from the per-cpu-list and considered as > + * lock-less. No other actions are performed, thus it returns > + * NULL if per-cpu-list is empty. > */ > #define __GFP_NOWARN ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_NOWARN) > #define __GFP_COMP ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_COMP) > #define __GFP_ZERO ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_ZERO) > +#define __GFP_NO_LOCKS ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_NO_LOCKS) > I'm not a fan of the GFP flag approach simply because we've had cases before where GFP flags were used in inappropriate contexts like __GFP_MEMALLOC which led to a surprising amount of bugs, particularly from out-of-tree drivers but also in-tree drivers. Of course, there are limited GFP flags available too but at least the comment should be as robust as possible. Maybe something like * %__GFP_NO_LOCKS attempts order-0 allocation without sleepable-locks. It * attempts to obtain a page without acquiring any spinlocks. This * should only be used in a context where the holder holds a * raw_spin_lock that cannot be released for the allocation request. * This may be necessary in PREEMPT_RT kernels where a * raw_spin_lock is held which does not sleep tries to acquire a * spin_lock that can sleep with PREEMPT_RT. This should not be * confused with GFP_ATOMIC contexts. Like atomic allocation * requests, there is no guarantee a page will be returned and * the caller must be able to deal with allocation failures. * The risk of allocation failure is higher than using GFP_ATOMIC. It's verbose but it would be hard to misinterpret. I think we're going to go through a period of time before people get familiar with PREEMPT_RT-related hazards as various comments that were true are going to be misleading for a while. For anyone reviewing, any use of __GFP_NO_LOCKS should meet a high standard where there is no alternative except to use the flags. i.e. a higher standard "but I'm an important driver". -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs