On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 06:44:15PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 06-02-17 07:39:23, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:07:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > > @@ -442,17 +442,17 @@ _xfs_buf_map_pages(
> > > bp->b_addr = NULL;
> > > } else {
> > > int retried = 0;
> > > - unsigned noio_flag;
> > > + unsigned nofs_flag;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * vm_map_ram() will allocate auxillary structures (e.g.
> > > * pagetables) with GFP_KERNEL, yet we are likely to be under
> > > * GFP_NOFS context here. Hence we need to tell memory reclaim
> > > - * that we are in such a context via PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO to prevent
> > > + * that we are in such a context via PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS to prevent
> > > * memory reclaim re-entering the filesystem here and
> > > * potentially deadlocking.
> > > */
> >
> > This comment feels out of date ... how about:
>
> which part is out of date?
>
> >
> > /*
> > * vm_map_ram will allocate auxiliary structures (eg page
> > * tables) with GFP_KERNEL. If that tries to reclaim memory
> > * by calling back into this filesystem, we may deadlock.
> > * Prevent that by setting the NOFS flag.
> > */
>
> dunno, the previous wording seems clear enough to me. Maybe little bit
> more chatty than yours but I am not sure this is worth changing.
I prefer to keep the "...yet we are likely to be under GFP_NOFS..."
wording of the old comment because it captures the uncertainty of
whether or not we actually are already under NOFS. If someone actually
has audited this code well enough to know for sure then yes let's change
the comment, but I haven't gone that far.
The way the kmem_zalloc_large code is structured suggests to me that
callers don't have to be especially aware of the NOFS state -- they can
just call the function and it'll take care of making it work.
> >
> > > - noio_flag = memalloc_noio_save();
> > > + nofs_flag = memalloc_nofs_save();
> > > do {
> > > bp->b_addr = vm_map_ram(bp->b_pages, bp->b_page_count,
> > > -1, PAGE_KERNEL);
> >
> > Also, I think it shows that this is the wrong place in XFS to be calling
> > memalloc_nofs_save(). I'm not arguing against including this patch;
> > it's a step towards where we want to be. I also don't know XFS well
> > enough to know where to set that flag ;-) Presumably when we start a
> > transaction ... ?
None of the current kmem_zalloc_large callers actually have a
transaction, at least not at that point.
> Yes that is what I would like to achieve longterm. And the reason why I
> didn't want to mimic this pattern in kvmalloc as some have suggested.
> It just takes much more time to get there from the past experience and
> we should really start somewhere.
--D
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
