On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:46:13AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > From: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <wi...@infradead.org> > > Ensure that memory allocations in the readahead path do not attempt to > reclaim file-backed pages, which could lead to a deadlock. It is > possible, though unlikely this is the root cause of a problem observed > by Cong Wang. > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <wi...@infradead.org> > Reported-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> > Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.com> > --- > mm/readahead.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/mm/readahead.c b/mm/readahead.c > index 94d499cfb657..8f9c0dba24e7 100644 > --- a/mm/readahead.c > +++ b/mm/readahead.c > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ > #include <linux/mm_inline.h> > #include <linux/blk-cgroup.h> > #include <linux/fadvise.h> > +#include <linux/sched/mm.h> > > #include "internal.h" > > @@ -174,6 +175,18 @@ void page_cache_readahead_limit(struct address_space > *mapping, > ._nr_pages = 0, > }; > > + /* > + * Partway through the readahead operation, we will have added > + * locked pages to the page cache, but will not yet have submitted > + * them for I/O. Adding another page may need to allocate memory, > + * which can trigger memory reclaim. Telling the VM we're in > + * the middle of a filesystem operation will cause it to not > + * touch file-backed pages, preventing a deadlock. Most (all?) > + * filesystems already specify __GFP_NOFS in their mapping's > + * gfp_mask, but let's be explicit here. > + */ > + unsigned int nofs = memalloc_nofs_save(); > +
So doesn't this largely remove the need for all the gfp flag futzing in the readahead path? i.e. almost all readahead allocations are now going to be GFP_NOFS | GFP_NORETRY | GFP_NOWARN ? If so, shouldn't we just strip all the gfp flags and masking out of the readahead path altogether? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com
