Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2023 20:44:58 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+fe0c72f0ccbb93786380@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] debugobject: don't wake up kswapd from fill_pool()
Message-Id: <20230511204458.819f9009d2ef8b46cc163191@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <6577e1fa-b6ee-f2be-2414-a2b51b1c5e30@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
References: <000000000000008ddb05fb5e2576@google.com>
        <6577e1fa-b6ee-f2be-2414-a2b51b1c5e30@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 11 May 2023 22:47:32 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:

> syzbot is reporting lockdep warning in fill_pool(), for GFP_ATOMIC is
> (__GFP_HIGH | __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM) which wakes up kswapd.
> Since fill_pool() might be called with arbitrary locks held,
> fill_pool() should not assume that holding pgdat->kswapd_wait is safe.

hm.  But many GFP_ATOMIC allocation attempts are made with locks held. 
Why aren't all such callers buggy, by trying to wake kswapd with locks
held?  What's special about this one?

> Also, __GFP_NORETRY is pointless for !__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM allocation
> 
> Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+fe0c72f0ccbb93786380@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=fe0c72f0ccbb93786380
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Fixes: 3ac7fe5a4aab ("infrastructure to debug (dynamic) objects")
> ---
>  lib/debugobjects.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/debugobjects.c b/lib/debugobjects.c
> index 003edc5ebd67..986adca357b4 100644
> --- a/lib/debugobjects.c
> +++ b/lib/debugobjects.c
> @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ static const char *obj_states[ODEBUG_STATE_MAX] = {
>  
>  static void fill_pool(void)
>  {
> -	gfp_t gfp = GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN;
> +	gfp_t gfp = __GFP_HIGH | __GFP_NOWARN;

Does this weaken fill_pool()'s allocation attempt more than necessary? 
We can still pass __GFP_HIGH?