On 06/14/2012 12:34 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:07:53AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: >> Hi Fengguang, >> >> On 06/14/2012 10:49 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:20:26AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 08:39:32PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: >>>>> Hi Christoph, Dave, >>>>> >>>>> I got this lockdep warning on XFS when running the xfs tests: > > [rant warning] > >>>> Bug in vm_map_ram - it does an unconditional GFP_KERNEL allocation >>>> here, and we are in a GFP_NOFS context. We can't pass a gfp_mask to >>>> vm_map_ram(), so until vm_map_ram() grows that we can't fix it... >>> >>> This trivial patch should fix it. > ..... >> >> It shouldn't work because vmap_page_range still can allocate GFP_KERNEL by pud_alloc in vmap_pud_range. >> For it, I tried [1] but other mm guys want to add WARNING [2] so let's avoiding gfp context passing. > > Oh, wonderful, you're pulling the "it's not a MM issue, don't use > vmalloc" card. > >> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/23/77 > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/24/29 > > "vmalloc was never supposed to use gfp flags for allocation > "context" restriction. I.e., it was always supposed to have > blocking, fs, and io capable allocation context." > > vmalloc always was a badly neglected, ugly step-sister of kmalloc > that was kept in the basement and only brought out when the tax > collector called. But that inner ugliness doesn't change the fact > that beatiful things have been built around it. XFS has used > vm_map_ram() and it's predecessor since it was first ported to linux > some 13 or 14 years ago, so the above claim is way out of date. i.e. > vmalloc has been used in GFP_NOFS context since before that flag > even existed.... > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/24/67 > > "I would say add a bit of warnings and documentation, and see what > can be done about callers." > > Wonderful. Well, there's about 2 years of work queued up for me > before I even get to the do the open heart surgery that would allow > XFS to handle memory allocation failures at this level without > causing the filesystem to shut down. > > Andrew Morton's response: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/24/413 > > "There are gruesome problems in block/blk-throttle.c (thread > "mempool, percpu, blkcg: fix percpu stat allocation and remove > stats_lock"). It wants to do an alloc_percpu()->vmalloc() from the > IO submission path, under GFP_NOIO. > > Changing vmalloc() to take a gfp_t does make lots of sense, although > I worry a bit about making vmalloc() easier to use!" > > OK, so according to Andrew there is no technical reason why it can't > be done, it's just handwaving about "vmalloc is bad".... > > >> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/2/340 > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/2/452 > > "> Where are these offending callsites? > > dm: > ... > ubi: > .... > ext4: > .... > ntfs: > .... > ubifs: > .... > mm: > .... > ceph: > ...." > > So, we've got a bunch of filesystems that require vmalloc under > GFP_NOFS conditions. Perhaps there's a reason for needing to be able > to do this in filesystem code? Like, perhaps, avoiding memory > reclaim deadlocks? > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/3/27 > > "Note that in writeback paths, a "good citizen" filesystem should > not require any allocations, or at least it should be able to > tolerate allocation failures. So fixing that would be a good idea > anyway." > > Oh, please. I have been hearing this for years, and are we any > closer to it? No, we are further away from ever being able to > acheive this than ever. Face it, filesystems require memory > allocation to write dirty data to disk, and the amount is almost > impossible to define. Hence mempools can't be used because we can't > give any guarantees of forward progress. And for vmalloc? > > Filesystems widely use vmalloc/vm_map_ram because kmalloc fails on > large contiguous allocations. This renders kmalloc unfit for > purpose, so we have to fall back to single page allocation and > vm_map_ram or vmalloc so that the filesystem can function properly. > And to avoid deadlocks, all memory allocation must be able to > specify GFP_NOFS to prevent the MM subsystem from recursing into the > filesystem. Therefore, vmalloc needs to support GFP_NOFS. > > I don't care how you make it happen, just fix it. Trying to place > the blame on the filesystem folk for using vmalloc in GFP_NOFS > contexts is a total and utter cop-out, because mm folk of all people > should know that non-zero order kmalloc is not a reliable > alternative.... > > [end rant] > > Cheers, > > Dave. Again, hot potato. I understand your claim and biased on you. Day by day, guys are adding their memory pool for avoiding this problem. IMHO, It's not good. If we can support context gfp passing in vmalloc, we could save many code. It means less error-prone as well as less code size. Ccing Nick. I hope we reach a agreement about this problem in this chance. -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
