On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 06:00:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > AFAIK 'GFP_NOWAIT' is characterized by the lack of __GFP_FS and > > __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM.. > > > > This matches the existing test in __need_fs_reclaim() - so if you are > > OK with GFP_NOFS, aka __GFP_IO which triggers try_to_compact_pages(), > > allocations during OOM, then I think fs_reclaim already matches what > > you described? > > No GFP_NOFS is equally bad. Please read my other email explaining what > the oom_reaper actually requires. In short no blocking on direct or > indirect dependecy on memory allocation that might sleep.
It is much easier to follow with some hints on code, so the true requirement is that the OOM repear not block on GFP_FS and GFP_IO allocations, great, that constraint is now clear. > If you can express that in the existing lockdep machinery. All > fine. But then consider deployments where lockdep is no-no because > of the overhead. This is all for driver debugging. The point of lockdep is to find all these paths without have to hit them as actual races, using debug kernels. I don't think we need this kind of debugging on production kernels? > > The best we got was drivers tested the VA range and returned success > > if they had no interest. Which is a big win to be sure, but it looks > > like getting any more is not really posssible. > > And that is already a great win! Because many notifiers only do care > about particular mappings. Please note that backing off unconditioanlly > will simply cause that the oom reaper will have to back off not doing > any tear down anything. Well, I'm working to propose that we do the VA range test under core mmu notifier code that cannot block and then we simply remove the idea of blockable from drivers using this new 'range notifier'. I think this pretty much solves the concern? > > However, we could (probably even should) make the drivers fs_reclaim > > safe. > > > > If that is enough to guarantee progress of OOM, then lets consider > > something like using current_gfp_context() to force PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS > > allocation behavior on the driver callback and lockdep to try and keep > > pushing on the the debugging, and dropping !blocking. > > How are you going to enforce indirect dependency? E.g. a lock that is > also used in other context which depend on sleepable memory allocation > to move forward. You mean like this: CPU0 CPU1 mutex_lock() kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL) mutex_unlock() fs_reclaim_acquire() mutex_lock() <- illegal: lock dep assertion ? lockdep handles this - that is what it does, it builds a graph of all lock dependencies and requires the graph to be acyclic. So mutex_lock depends on fs_reclaim_lock on CPU1 while on CPU0, fs_reclaim_lock depends on mutex_lock. This is an ABBA locking cycle and lockdep will reliably trigger. So, if we wanted to do this, I'd probably suggest we retool fs_reclaim's interface be more like prevent_gfp_flags(__GFP_IO | __GFP_FS); [..] restore_gfp_flags(__GFP_IO | __GFP_FS); Which is lockdep based and follows the indirect lock dependencies you talked about. Then OOM and reclaim can specify the different flags they want blocked. We could probably use the same API with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM as I was chatting with Tejun about: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg77362.html IMHO this stuff is *super complicated* for those of us outside the mm subsystem, so having some really clear annotations like the above would go a long way to help understand these special constraints. I'm pretty sure there are lots of driver bugs related to using the wrong GFP flags in the kernel. > Really, this was aimed to give a very simple debugging aid. If it is > considered to be so controversial, even though I really do not see why, > then let's just drop it on the floor. My concern is that the requirement was very unclear. I'm trying to understand all the bits of how these notifiers work and the exact semantic of this OOM path have been vauge if it is really some GFP flag restriction or truely related to not sleeping. Jason