On Thu 06-01-22 17:12:18, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 04-01-22 13:22:25, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > +static struct lru_gen_mm_walk *alloc_mm_walk(void)
> > +{
> > + if (!current->reclaim_state || !current->reclaim_state->mm_walk)
> > + return kvzalloc(sizeof(struct lru_gen_mm_walk), GFP_KERNEL);
One thing I have overlooked completely. You cannot really use GFP_KERNEL
allocation here because the reclaim context can be constrained (e.g.
GFP_NOFS). This allocation will not do any reclaim as it is PF_MEMALLOC
but I suspect that the lockdep will complain anyway.
Also kvmalloc is not really great here. a) vmalloc path is never
executed for small objects and b) we do not really want to make a
dependency between vmalloc and the reclaim (by vmalloc -> reclaim ->
vmalloc).
Even if we rule out vmalloc and look at kmalloc alone. Is this really
safe? I do not see any recursion prevention in the SL.B code. Maybe this
just happens to work but the dependency should be really documented so
that future SL.B changes won't break the whole scheme.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
