On Tue 27-08-24 03:05:29, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 08:58:39AM GMT, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 27-08-24 02:40:16, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 08:01:32AM GMT, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > You are not really answering the main concern I have brought up though.
> > > > I.e. GFP_NOFAIL being fundamentally incompatible with NORECLAIM semantic
> > > > because the page allocator doesn't and will not support this allocation
> > > > mode. Scoped noreclaim semantic makes such a use much less visible
> > > > because it can be deep in the scoped context there more error prone to
> > > > introduce thus making the code harder to maintain.
> > >
> > > You're too attached to GFP_NOFAIL.
> >
> > Unfortunatelly GFP_NOFAIL is there and we need to support it. We cannot
> > just close eyes and pretend it doesn't exist and hope for the best.
>
> You need to notice when you're trying to do something immpossible.
Agreed! And GFP_NOFAIL for allocations <= order 1 in the page allocator or
kvmalloc(GFP_NOFAIL) for reasonable sizes is a supported setup. And it
should work as documented and shouldn't create any surprises. Like
returning unexpected failure because you have been called from withing a
NORECLAIM scope which you as an author of the code are not even aware of
because that has happened somewhere detached from your code and you
happen to be in a callchain.
> > > GFP_NOFAIL is something we very rarely use, and it's not something we
> > > want to use. Furthermore, GFP_NOFAIL allocations can fail regardless of
> > > this patch - e.g. if it's more than 2 pages, it's not going to be
> > > GFP_NOFAIL.
> >
> > We can reasonably assume we do not have any of those users in the tree
> > though. We know that because we have a warning to tell us about that.
> > We still have legit GFP_NOFAIL users and we can safely assume we will
> > have some in the future though. And they have no way to handle the
> > failure. If they did they wouldn't have used GFP_NOFAIL in the first
> > place. So they do not check for NULL and they would either blow up or
> > worse fail in subtle and harder to detect way.
>
> No, because not all GFP_NOFAIL allocations are statically sized.
This is a runtime check warning.
rmqueue:
WARN_ON_ONCE((gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL) && (order > 1));
> And the problem of the dynamic context overriding GFP_NOFAIL is more
> general - if you use GFP_NOFAIL from nonblocking context (interrupt
> context or preemption disabled) - the allocation has to fail, or
> something even worse will happen.
If you use __GFP_NOFAIL | GFP_KERNEL from an atomic context then you are
screwed the same way as if you used GFP_KERNEL alone - sleeping while
atomic or worse. The allocator doesn't even try to deal with this and
protect the caller by not sleeping and returning NULL.
More fundamentally, GFP_NOFAIL from non-blocking context is an incorrect
an unsupported use of the flag. This is the crux of the whole
discussion. GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOFAIL or GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOFAIL is
just a bug. We can git grep for those, and surprisingly found one instance
which already has a patch waiting to be merged.
We cannot enforce that at a compile time and that sucks but such is a
life. But we can grep for this at least. Now consider a scoped
(implicit) NOWAIT context which makes even seeemingly correct GFP_NOFAIL
use a bug.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
