On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:07:30PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:40:41PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
> > The caller into dax needs to clear __GFP_FS mask bit since it's
> > responsible for acquiring locks / transactions that blocks __GFP_FS
> > allocation. The caller will restore the original mask when dax function
> > returns.
>
> What's the allocation problem you're working around here? Can you
> please describe the call chain that is the problem?
>
> > xfs_ilock(XFS_I(inode), XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED);
> >
> > if (IS_DAX(inode)) {
> > + gfp_t old_gfp = vmf->gfp_mask;
> > +
> > + vmf->gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_FS;
> > ret = dax_iomap_fault(vma, vmf, &xfs_iomap_ops);
> > + vmf->gfp_mask = old_gfp;
>
> I really have to say that I hate code that clears and restores flags
> without any explanation of why the code needs to play flag tricks. I
> take one look at the XFS fault handling code and ask myself now "why
> the hell do we need to clear those flags?" Especially as the other
> paths into generic fault handlers /don't/ require us to do this.
> What does DAX do that require us to treat memory allocation contexts
> differently to the filemap_fault() path?
This was done in response to Jan Kara's concern:
The gfp_mask that propagates from __do_fault() or do_page_mkwrite() is fine
because at that point it is correct. But once we grab filesystem locks which
are not reclaim safe, we should update vmf->gfp_mask we pass further down
into DAX code to not contain __GFP_FS (that's a bug we apparently have
there). And inside DAX code, we definitely are not generally safe to add
__GFP_FS to mapping_gfp_mask(). Maybe we'd be better off propagating struct
vm_fault into this function, using passed gfp_mask there and make sure
callers update gfp_mask as appropriate.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/37
IIUC I think the concern is that, for example, in xfs_filemap_page_mkwrite()
we take a read lock on the struct inode.i_rwsem before we call
dax_iomap_fault().
dax_iomap_fault() then calls find_or_create_page(), etc. with the
vfm->gfp_mask we were given.
I believe the concern is that if that memory allocation tries to do FS
operations to free memory because __GFP_FS is part of the gfp mask, then we
could end up deadlocking because we are already holding FS locks.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>