Re: [RFC] vmalloc: add warning in __vmalloc
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Date: 2012-05-01 03:13:46
Also in:
lkml
On 27 April 2012 20:36, David Rientjes [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Minchan Kim wrote:quoted
Now there are several places to use __vmalloc with GFP_ATOMIC, GFP_NOIO, GFP_NOFS but unfortunately __vmalloc calls map_vm_area which calls alloc_pages with GFP_KERNEL to allocate page tables. It means it's possible to happen deadlock. I don't know why it doesn't have reported until now. Firstly, I tried passing gfp_t to lower functions to support __vmalloc with such flags but other mm guys don't want and decided that all of caller should be fixed. http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=133517143616544&w=2 To begin with, let's listen other's opinion whether they can fix it by other approach without calling __vmalloc with such flags. So this patch adds warning to detect and to be fixed hopely. I Cced related maintainers. If I miss someone, please Cced them. side-note: I added WARN_ON instead of WARN_ONCE to detect all of callers and each WARN_ON for each flag to detect to use any flag easily. After we fix all of caller or reduce such caller, we can merge a warning with WARN_ONCE.I disagree with this approach since it's going to violently spam an innocent kernel user's log with no ratelimiting and for a situation that actually may not be problematic.
With WARN_ON_ONCE, it should be good.
Passing any of these bits (the difference between GFP_KERNEL and GFP_ATOMIC) only means anything when we're going to do reclaim. And I'm suspecting we would have seen problems with this already since pte_alloc_kernel() does __GFP_REPEAT on most architectures meaning that it will loop infinitely in the page allocator until at least one page is freed (since its an order-0 allocation) which would hardly ever happen if __GFP_FS or __GFP_IO actually meant something in this context. In other words, we would already have seen these deadlocks and it would have been diagnosed as a vmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC) problem. Where are those bug reports?
That's not sound logic to disprove a bug. I think simply most callers are permissive and don't mask out flags. But for example a filesystem holding an fs lock and then doing vmalloc(GFP_NOFS) can certainly deadlock. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>