Re: [PATCH 1/9] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers
On Fri 02-06-17 07:40:12, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:28:56AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 02-06-17 07:17:22, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:30:24AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > +void *kvmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > > > +{
> > > > + gfp_t kmalloc_flags = flags;
> > > > + void *ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > +* vmalloc uses GFP_KERNEL for some internal allocations (e.g
> > > > page tables)
> > > > +* so the given set of flags has to be compatible.
> > > > +*/
> > > > + WARN_ON_ONCE((flags & GFP_KERNEL) != GFP_KERNEL);
> > >
> > > Hm, there are quite a few locations in the kernel that do something like:
> > >
> > > __vmalloc(len, GFP_NOFS, PAGE_KERNEL);
> > >
> > > According to your patch, vmalloc can't really do GFP_NOFS, right?
> >
> > Yes. It is quite likely that they will just work because the hardcoded
> > GFP_KERNEL inside the vmalloc path is in unlikely paths (page table
> > allocations for example) but yes they are broken. I didn't convert some
> > places which opencode the kvmalloc with GFP_NOFS because I strongly
> > _believe_ that the GFP_NOFS should be revisited, checked whether it is
> > needed, documented if so and then memalloc_nofs__{save,restore} be used
> > for the scope which is reclaim recursion unsafe. This would turn all
> > those vmalloc users to the default GFP_KERNEL and still do the right
> > thing.
>
> While you haven't converted those paths, other folks have picked up
> on that:
>
> commit beeeccca9bebcec386cc31c250cff8a06cf27034
> Author: Vinnie Magro
> Date: Thu May 25 12:18:02 2017 -0700
>
> btrfs: Use kvzalloc instead of kzalloc/vmalloc in alloc_bitmap
> [...]
>
> Maybe we should make kvmalloc_node() fail non-GFP_KERNEL allocations
> rather than just warn on them to make this error more evident?
The above has been already discussed [1] and will be dropped with a more
appropriate alternative. I do not think we should be failing those,
though. Supported flags are documented and the warn on will tell that
something is clearly wrong.
> I'm not sure how these warnings were missed during testing.
I suspect this conversion just hasn't been tested because it is an
"obvious cleanup"
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170531063033.GC1795@yexl-desktop
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Re: [PATCH 1/9] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers
On Fri 02-06-17 07:40:12, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:28:56AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 02-06-17 07:17:22, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:30:24AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > +void *kvmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > > > +{
> > > > + gfp_t kmalloc_flags = flags;
> > > > + void *ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > +* vmalloc uses GFP_KERNEL for some internal allocations (e.g
> > > > page tables)
> > > > +* so the given set of flags has to be compatible.
> > > > +*/
> > > > + WARN_ON_ONCE((flags & GFP_KERNEL) != GFP_KERNEL);
> > >
> > > Hm, there are quite a few locations in the kernel that do something like:
> > >
> > > __vmalloc(len, GFP_NOFS, PAGE_KERNEL);
> > >
> > > According to your patch, vmalloc can't really do GFP_NOFS, right?
> >
> > Yes. It is quite likely that they will just work because the hardcoded
> > GFP_KERNEL inside the vmalloc path is in unlikely paths (page table
> > allocations for example) but yes they are broken. I didn't convert some
> > places which opencode the kvmalloc with GFP_NOFS because I strongly
> > _believe_ that the GFP_NOFS should be revisited, checked whether it is
> > needed, documented if so and then memalloc_nofs__{save,restore} be used
> > for the scope which is reclaim recursion unsafe. This would turn all
> > those vmalloc users to the default GFP_KERNEL and still do the right
> > thing.
>
> While you haven't converted those paths, other folks have picked up
> on that:
>
> commit beeeccca9bebcec386cc31c250cff8a06cf27034
> Author: Vinnie Magro
> Date: Thu May 25 12:18:02 2017 -0700
>
> btrfs: Use kvzalloc instead of kzalloc/vmalloc in alloc_bitmap
> [...]
>
> Maybe we should make kvmalloc_node() fail non-GFP_KERNEL allocations
> rather than just warn on them to make this error more evident?
The above has been already discussed [1] and will be dropped with a more
appropriate alternative. I do not think we should be failing those,
though. Supported flags are documented and the warn on will tell that
something is clearly wrong.
> I'm not sure how these warnings were missed during testing.
I suspect this conversion just hasn't been tested because it is an
"obvious cleanup"
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170531063033.GC1795@yexl-desktop
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Re: [PATCH 1/9] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:28:56AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 02-06-17 07:17:22, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:30:24AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > +void *kvmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > > +{
> > > + gfp_t kmalloc_flags = flags;
> > > + void *ret;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * vmalloc uses GFP_KERNEL for some internal allocations (e.g page
> > > tables)
> > > + * so the given set of flags has to be compatible.
> > > + */
> > > + WARN_ON_ONCE((flags & GFP_KERNEL) != GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > Hm, there are quite a few locations in the kernel that do something like:
> >
> > __vmalloc(len, GFP_NOFS, PAGE_KERNEL);
> >
> > According to your patch, vmalloc can't really do GFP_NOFS, right?
>
> Yes. It is quite likely that they will just work because the hardcoded
> GFP_KERNEL inside the vmalloc path is in unlikely paths (page table
> allocations for example) but yes they are broken. I didn't convert some
> places which opencode the kvmalloc with GFP_NOFS because I strongly
> _believe_ that the GFP_NOFS should be revisited, checked whether it is
> needed, documented if so and then memalloc_nofs__{save,restore} be used
> for the scope which is reclaim recursion unsafe. This would turn all
> those vmalloc users to the default GFP_KERNEL and still do the right
> thing.
While you haven't converted those paths, other folks have picked up
on that:
commit beeeccca9bebcec386cc31c250cff8a06cf27034
Author: Vinnie Magro
Date: Thu May 25 12:18:02 2017 -0700
btrfs: Use kvzalloc instead of kzalloc/vmalloc in alloc_bitmap
[...]
Maybe we should make kvmalloc_node() fail non-GFP_KERNEL allocations
rather than just warn on them to make this error more evident? I'm not
sure how these warnings were missed during testing.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
Re: [PATCH 1/9] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:28:56AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 02-06-17 07:17:22, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:30:24AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > +void *kvmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > > +{
> > > + gfp_t kmalloc_flags = flags;
> > > + void *ret;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * vmalloc uses GFP_KERNEL for some internal allocations (e.g page
> > > tables)
> > > + * so the given set of flags has to be compatible.
> > > + */
> > > + WARN_ON_ONCE((flags & GFP_KERNEL) != GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > Hm, there are quite a few locations in the kernel that do something like:
> >
> > __vmalloc(len, GFP_NOFS, PAGE_KERNEL);
> >
> > According to your patch, vmalloc can't really do GFP_NOFS, right?
>
> Yes. It is quite likely that they will just work because the hardcoded
> GFP_KERNEL inside the vmalloc path is in unlikely paths (page table
> allocations for example) but yes they are broken. I didn't convert some
> places which opencode the kvmalloc with GFP_NOFS because I strongly
> _believe_ that the GFP_NOFS should be revisited, checked whether it is
> needed, documented if so and then memalloc_nofs__{save,restore} be used
> for the scope which is reclaim recursion unsafe. This would turn all
> those vmalloc users to the default GFP_KERNEL and still do the right
> thing.
While you haven't converted those paths, other folks have picked up
on that:
commit beeeccca9bebcec386cc31c250cff8a06cf27034
Author: Vinnie Magro
Date: Thu May 25 12:18:02 2017 -0700
btrfs: Use kvzalloc instead of kzalloc/vmalloc in alloc_bitmap
[...]
Maybe we should make kvmalloc_node() fail non-GFP_KERNEL allocations
rather than just warn on them to make this error more evident? I'm not
sure how these warnings were missed during testing.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
Re: [PATCH 1/9] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers
On Fri 02-06-17 07:17:22, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:30:24AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > +void *kvmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > +{
> > + gfp_t kmalloc_flags = flags;
> > + void *ret;
> > +
> > + /*
> > +* vmalloc uses GFP_KERNEL for some internal allocations (e.g page
> > tables)
> > +* so the given set of flags has to be compatible.
> > +*/
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE((flags & GFP_KERNEL) != GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Hm, there are quite a few locations in the kernel that do something like:
>
> __vmalloc(len, GFP_NOFS, PAGE_KERNEL);
>
> According to your patch, vmalloc can't really do GFP_NOFS, right?
Yes. It is quite likely that they will just work because the hardcoded
GFP_KERNEL inside the vmalloc path is in unlikely paths (page table
allocations for example) but yes they are broken. I didn't convert some
places which opencode the kvmalloc with GFP_NOFS because I strongly
_believe_ that the GFP_NOFS should be revisited, checked whether it is
needed, documented if so and then memalloc_nofs__{save,restore} be used
for the scope which is reclaim recursion unsafe. This would turn all
those vmalloc users to the default GFP_KERNEL and still do the right
thing.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Re: [PATCH 1/9] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers
On Fri 02-06-17 07:17:22, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:30:24AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > +void *kvmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > +{
> > + gfp_t kmalloc_flags = flags;
> > + void *ret;
> > +
> > + /*
> > +* vmalloc uses GFP_KERNEL for some internal allocations (e.g page
> > tables)
> > +* so the given set of flags has to be compatible.
> > +*/
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE((flags & GFP_KERNEL) != GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Hm, there are quite a few locations in the kernel that do something like:
>
> __vmalloc(len, GFP_NOFS, PAGE_KERNEL);
>
> According to your patch, vmalloc can't really do GFP_NOFS, right?
Yes. It is quite likely that they will just work because the hardcoded
GFP_KERNEL inside the vmalloc path is in unlikely paths (page table
allocations for example) but yes they are broken. I didn't convert some
places which opencode the kvmalloc with GFP_NOFS because I strongly
_believe_ that the GFP_NOFS should be revisited, checked whether it is
needed, documented if so and then memalloc_nofs__{save,restore} be used
for the scope which is reclaim recursion unsafe. This would turn all
those vmalloc users to the default GFP_KERNEL and still do the right
thing.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Re: [PATCH 1/9] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:30:24AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> +void *kvmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
> +{
> + gfp_t kmalloc_flags = flags;
> + void *ret;
> +
> + /*
> + * vmalloc uses GFP_KERNEL for some internal allocations (e.g page
> tables)
> + * so the given set of flags has to be compatible.
> + */
> + WARN_ON_ONCE((flags & GFP_KERNEL) != GFP_KERNEL);
Hm, there are quite a few locations in the kernel that do something like:
__vmalloc(len, GFP_NOFS, PAGE_KERNEL);
According to your patch, vmalloc can't really do GFP_NOFS, right?
--
Thanks,
Sasha
Re: [PATCH 1/9] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:30:24AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> +void *kvmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
> +{
> + gfp_t kmalloc_flags = flags;
> + void *ret;
> +
> + /*
> + * vmalloc uses GFP_KERNEL for some internal allocations (e.g page
> tables)
> + * so the given set of flags has to be compatible.
> + */
> + WARN_ON_ONCE((flags & GFP_KERNEL) != GFP_KERNEL);
Hm, there are quite a few locations in the kernel that do something like:
__vmalloc(len, GFP_NOFS, PAGE_KERNEL);
According to your patch, vmalloc can't really do GFP_NOFS, right?
--
Thanks,
Sasha
