On Thu 12-11-15 10:53:01, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 11-11-15 15:13:53, mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > > > page_cache_read has been historically using page_cache_alloc_cold to > > allocate a new page. This means that mapping_gfp_mask is used as the > > base for the gfp_mask. Many filesystems are setting this mask to > > GFP_NOFS to prevent from fs recursion issues. page_cache_read is > > called from the vm_operations_struct::fault() context during the page > > fault. This context doesn't need the reclaim protection normally. > > > > ceph and ocfs2 which call filemap_fault from their fault handlers > > seem to be OK because they are not taking any fs lock before invoking > > generic implementation. xfs which takes XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED is safe > > from the reclaim recursion POV because this lock serializes truncate > > and punch hole with the page faults and it doesn't get involved in the > > reclaim. > > > > There is simply no reason to deliberately use a weaker allocation > > context when a __GFP_FS | __GFP_IO can be used. The GFP_NOFS > > protection might be even harmful. There is a push to fail GFP_NOFS > > allocations rather than loop within allocator indefinitely with a > > very limited reclaim ability. Once we start failing those requests > > the OOM killer might be triggered prematurely because the page cache > > allocation failure is propagated up the page fault path and end up in > > pagefault_out_of_memory. > > > > We cannot play with mapping_gfp_mask directly because that would be racy > > wrt. parallel page faults and it might interfere with other users who > > really rely on NOFS semantic from the stored gfp_mask. The mask is also > > inode proper so it would even be a layering violation. What we can do > > instead is to push the gfp_mask into struct vm_fault and allow fs layer > > to overwrite it should the callback need to be called with a different > > allocation context. > > > > Initialize the default to (mapping_gfp_mask | __GFP_FS | __GFP_IO) > > because this should be safe from the page fault path normally. Why do we > > care about mapping_gfp_mask at all then? Because this doesn't hold only > > reclaim protection flags but it also might contain zone and movability > > restrictions (GFP_DMA32, __GFP_MOVABLE and others) so we have to respect > > those. > > > > Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > Hi, > > this has been posted previously as a part of larger GFP_NOFS related > > patch set (http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1438768284-30927-1-git-send-email-mhocko%40kernel.org) > > but I think it makes sense to discuss it even out of that scope. > > > > I would like to hear FS and other MM people about the proposed interface. > > Using mapping_gfp_mask blindly doesn't sound good to me and vm_fault > > looks like a proper channel to communicate between MM and FS layers. > > > > Comments? Are there any better ideas? > > Makes sense to me and the filesystems I know should be fine with this > (famous last words ;). Feel free to add: > > Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> Thanks a lot! Are there any objections from other fs/mm people? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>