On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 02:49:27PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 03:18:28PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> > Am 20.03.21 um 14:17 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:04 AM Christian König
> > > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Am 19.03.21 um 20:06 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 07:53:48PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> > > > > > Am 19.03.21 um 18:52 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 03:08:57PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> > > > > > > > Don't print a warning when we fail to allocate a page for swapping things out.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also rely on memalloc_nofs_save/memalloc_nofs_restore instead of GFP_NOFS.
> > > > > > > Uh this part doesn't make sense. Especially since you only do it for the
> > > > > > > debugfs file, not in general. Which means you've just completely broken
> > > > > > > the shrinker.
> > > > > > Are you sure? My impression is that GFP_NOFS should now work much more out
> > > > > > of the box with the memalloc_nofs_save()/memalloc_nofs_restore().
> > > > > Yeah, if you'd put it in the right place :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > But also -mm folks are very clear that memalloc_no*() family is for dire
> > > > > situation where there's really no other way out. For anything where you
> > > > > know what you're doing, you really should use explicit gfp flags.
> > > > My impression is just the other way around. You should try to avoid the
> > > > NOFS/NOIO flags and use the memalloc_no* approach instead.
> > > Where did you get that idea?
> >
> > Well from the kernel comment on GFP_NOFS:
> >
> > * %GFP_NOFS will use direct reclaim but will not use any filesystem
> > interfaces.
> > * Please try to avoid using this flag directly and instead use
> > * memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} to mark the whole scope which
> > cannot/shouldn't
> > * recurse into the FS layer with a short explanation why. All allocation
> > * requests will inherit GFP_NOFS implicitly.
>
> Huh that's interesting, since iirc Willy or Dave told me the opposite, and
> the memalloc_no* stuff is for e.g. nfs calling into network layer (needs
> GFP_NOFS) or swap on top of a filesystems (even needs GFP_NOIO I think).
>
> Adding them, maybe I got confused.
My impression is that the scoped API is preferred these days.
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/core-api/gfp_mask-from-fs-io.html
I'd probably need to spend a few months learning the DRM subsystem to
have a more detailed opinion on whether passing GFP flags around explicitly
or using the scope API is the better approach for your situation.
I usually defer to Michal on these kinds of questions.
> > > The kernel is full of explicit gfp_t flag
> > > passing to make this as explicit as possible. The memalloc_no* stuff
> > > is just for when you go through entire subsystems and really can't
> > > wire it through. I can't find the discussion anymore, but that was the
> > > advice I got from mm/fs people.
> > >
> > > One reason is that generally a small GFP_KERNEL allocation never
> > > fails. But it absolutely can fail if it's in a memalloc_no* section,
> > > and these kind of non-obvious non-local effects are a real pain in
> > > testing and review. Hence explicit gfp_flag passing as much as
> > > possible.
I agree with this; it's definitely a problem with the scope API. I wanted
to extend it to include GFP_NOWAIT, but if you do that, your chances of
memory allocation failure go way up, so you really want to set __GFP_NOWARN
too, but now you need to audit all the places that you're calling to be
sure they really handle errors correctly.
So I think I'm giving up on that patch set.
> > > > > > > If this is just to paper over the seq_printf doing the wrong allocations,
> > > > > > > then just move that out from under the fs_reclaim_acquire/release part.
> > > > > > No, that wasn't the problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have just seen to many failures to allocate pages for swapout and I think
> > > > > > that would improve this because in a lot of cases we can then immediately
> > > > > > swap things out instead of having to rely on upper layers.
> > > > > Yeah, you broke it. Now the real shrinker is running with GFP_KERNEL,
> > > > > because your memalloc_no is only around the debugfs function. And ofc it's
> > > > > much easier to allocate with GFP_KERNEL, right until you deadlock :-)
> > > > The problem here is that for example kswapd calls the shrinker without
> > > > holding a FS lock as far as I can see.
> > > >
> > > > And it is rather sad that we can't optimize this case directly.
> > > I'm still not clear what you want to optimize? You can check for "is
> > > this kswapd" in pf flags, but that sounds very hairy and fragile.
> >
> > Well we only need the NOFS flag when the shrinker callback really comes from
> > a memory shortage in the FS subsystem, and that is rather unlikely.
> >
> > When we would allow all other cases to be able to directly IO the freed up
> > pages to swap it would certainly help.
>
> tbh I'm not sure. i915-gem code has played tricks with special casing the
> kswapd path, and they do kinda scare me at least. I'm not sure whether
> there's not some hidden dependencies there that would make this a bad
> idea. Like afaik direct reclaim can sometimes stall for kswapd to catch up
> a bit, or at least did in the past (I think, really not much clue about
> this)
>
> The other thing is that the fs_reclaim_acquire/release annotation really
> only works well if you use it outside of the direct reclaim path too.
> Otherwise it's not much better than just lots of testing. That pretty much
> means you have to annotate the kswapd path.
> -Daniel
>
>
>
> >
> > Christian.
> >
> > > -Daniel
> > >
> > > > Anyway you are right if some caller doesn't use the memalloc_no*()
> > > > approach we are busted.
> > > >
> > > > Going to change the patch to only not warn for the moment.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Christian.
> > > >
> > > > > Shrinking is hard, there's no easy way out here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers, Daniel
> > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Christian.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > __GFP_NOWARN should be there indeed I think.
> > > > > > > -Daniel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c | 5 ++++-
> > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c
> > > > > > > > index 2f0833c98d2c..86fa3e82dacc 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ static unsigned long ttm_tt_shrinker_scan(struct shrinker *shrink,
> > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > > int ret;
> > > > > > > > - ret = ttm_bo_swapout(&ctx, GFP_NOFS);
> > > > > > > > + ret = ttm_bo_swapout(&ctx, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > > > > > > > return ret < 0 ? SHRINK_EMPTY : ret;
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > @@ -389,10 +389,13 @@ static unsigned long ttm_tt_shrinker_count(struct shrinker *shrink,
> > > > > > > > static int ttm_tt_debugfs_shrink_show(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > struct shrink_control sc = { .gfp_mask = GFP_KERNEL };
> > > > > > > > + unsigned int flags;
> > > > > > > > fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > > > > + flags = memalloc_nofs_save();
> > > > > > > > seq_printf(m, "%lu/%lu\n", ttm_tt_shrinker_count(&mm_shrinker, &sc),
> > > > > > > > ttm_tt_shrinker_scan(&mm_shrinker, &sc));
> > > > > > > > + memalloc_nofs_restore(flags);
> > > > > > > > fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > > > > return 0;
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 2.25.1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > dri-devel mailing list
> > > > > > > > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> > >
> >
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch
