On 12/10/24 22:53, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 1:01 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 2024-12-09 18:39:31 [-0800], Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> > From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Tracing BPF programs execute from tracepoints and kprobes where running >> > context is unknown, but they need to request additional memory. >> > The prior workarounds were using pre-allocated memory and BPF specific >> > freelists to satisfy such allocation requests. Instead, introduce >> > __GFP_TRYLOCK flag that makes page allocator accessible from any context. >> > It relies on percpu free list of pages that rmqueue_pcplist() should be >> > able to pop the page from. If it fails (due to IRQ re-entrancy or list >> > being empty) then try_alloc_pages() attempts to spin_trylock zone->lock >> > and refill percpu freelist as normal. >> > BPF program may execute with IRQs disabled and zone->lock is sleeping in RT, >> > so trylock is the only option. >> >> The __GFP_TRYLOCK flag looks reasonable given the challenges for BPF >> where it is not known how much memory will be needed and what the >> calling context is. > > Exactly. > >> I hope it does not spread across the kernel where >> people do ATOMIC in preempt/ IRQ-off on PREEMPT_RT and then once they >> learn that this does not work, add this flag to the mix to make it work >> without spending some time on reworking it. > > We can call it __GFP_BPF to discourage any other usage, > but that seems like an odd "solution" to code review problem. Could we perhaps not expose the flag to public headers at all, and keep it only as an internal detail of try_alloc_pages_noprof()?
