On Tue 16-06-20 09:06:05, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 04:53:31PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 15-06-20 16:25:52, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> > > On 2020-06-15 13:56, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
> > > > index b356118..1ccfbf2 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
> > > > @@ -573,9 +573,21 @@ static inline bool xfs_ioend_needs_workqueue(struct iomap_ioend *ioend)
> > > > struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > > > {
> > > > struct xfs_writepage_ctx wpc = { };
> > > > + unsigned int nofs_flag;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > xfs_iflags_clear(XFS_I(mapping->host), XFS_ITRUNCATED);
> > > > - return iomap_writepages(mapping, wbc, &wpc.ctx, &xfs_writeback_ops);
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * We can allocate memory here while doing writeback on behalf of
> > > > + * memory reclaim. To avoid memory allocation deadlocks set the
> > > > + * task-wide nofs context for the following operations.
> > > > + */
> > > > + nofs_flag = memalloc_nofs_save();
> > > > + ret = iomap_writepages(mapping, wbc, &wpc.ctx, &xfs_writeback_ops);
> > > > + memalloc_nofs_restore(nofs_flag);
> > > > +
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > }
> > > > STATIC int
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not sure if I did something wrong, but while the previous version of this patch
> > > worked fine, this one gave me (with v2 removed obviously):
> > >
> > > [ +0.000004] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2811 at fs/iomap/buffered-io.c:1544 iomap_do_writepage+0x6b4/0x780
> >
> > This corresponds to
> > /*
> > * Given that we do not allow direct reclaim to call us, we should
> > * never be called in a recursive filesystem reclaim context.
> > */
> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS))
> > goto redirty;
> >
> > which effectivelly says that memalloc_nofs_save/restore cannot be used
> > for that code path.
>
> No it doesn't. Everyone is ignoring the -context- of this code, most
> especially the previous 3 lines of code and it's comment:
>
> /*
> * Refuse to write the page out if we are called from reclaim context.
> *
> * This avoids stack overflows when called from deeply used stacks in
> * random callers for direct reclaim or memcg reclaim. We explicitly
> * allow reclaim from kswapd as the stack usage there is relatively low.
> *
> * This should never happen except in the case of a VM regression so
> * warn about it.
> */
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE((current->flags & (PF_MEMALLOC|PF_KSWAPD)) ==
> PF_MEMALLOC))
> goto redirty;
>
> You will see that we specifically avoid this path from reclaim
> context except for kswapd. And kswapd always runs with GFP_KERNEL
> context so we allow writeback from it, so it will pass both this
> check and the NOFS check above.
>
> IOws, we can't trigger to the WARN_ON_ONCE(current->flags &
> PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS)) check from a memory reclaim context: this
> PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS check here is not doing what people think it is.
You are right.
> History lesson time, eh?
>
> The recursion protection here -used- to use PF_FSTRANS, not
> PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS. See commit 9070733b4efac ("xfs: abstract
> PF_FSTRANS to PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS"). This hunk is most instructive
> when you look at the comment:
>
> * Given that we do not allow direct reclaim to call us, we should
> * never be called while in a filesystem transaction.
> */
> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(current->flags & PF_FSTRANS))
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS))
> goto redirty;
>
> It wasn't for memory allocation recursion protection in XFS - it was
> for transaction reservation recursion protection by something trying
> to flush data pages while holding a transaction reservation. Doing
> this could deadlock the journal because the existing reservation
> could prevent the nested reservation for being able to reserve space
> in the journal and that is a self-deadlock vector.
>
> IOWs, this check is not protecting against memory reclaim recursion
> bugs at all (that's the previous check I quoted). This check is
> protecting against the filesystem calling writepages directly from a
> context where it can self-deadlock.
Thanks for the clarification.
> So what we are seeing here is that the PF_FSTRANS ->
> PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS abstraction lost all the actual useful information
> about what type of error this check was protecting against.
I have to admit that I am not familiar with the xfs code and the
PF_TRANS abstraction to PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS was mostly automatic and I
relied on xfs maintainers to tell me I was doing something stupid.
Now after your explanation it makes more sense that the warning is
indeed protecting from a different kind of issue.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
