On Sat, 27 Jun 2020, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:02:19AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > Hi > > > > I suggest to join memalloc_noio and memalloc_nofs into just one flag that > > prevents both filesystem recursion and i/o recursion. > > > > Note that any I/O can recurse into a filesystem via the loop device, thus > > it doesn't make much sense to have a context where PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS is set > > and PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO is not set. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that will prevent swapping from > GFP_NOFS memory reclaim contexts. Yes. > IOWs, this will substantially > change the behaviour of the memory reclaim system under sustained > GFP_NOFS memory pressure. Sustained GFP_NOFS memory pressure is > quite common, so I really don't think we want to telling memory > reclaim "you can't do IO at all" when all we are trying to do is > prevent recursion back into the same filesystem. So, we can define __GFP_ONLY_SWAP_IO and __GFP_IO. > Given that the loop device IO path already operates under > memalloc_noio context, (i.e. the recursion restriction is applied in > only the context that needs is) I see no reason for making that a > global reclaim limitation.... I think this is a problem. Suppose that a filesystem does GFP_NOFS allocation, the allocation triggers an IO and waits for it to finish, the loop device driver redirects the IO to the same filesystem that did the GFP_NOFS allocation. I saw this deadlock in the past in the dm-bufio subsystem - see the commit 9d28eb12447ee08bb5d1e8bb3195cf20e1ecd1c0 that fixed it. Other subsystems that do IO in GFP_NOFS context may deadlock just like bufio. Mikulas -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
