Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: drop PF_MEMALLOC_NORECLAIM
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Date: 2024-08-26 19:18:04
Also in:
linux-bcachefs, linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, lkml
Subsystem:
scheduler, the rest · Maintainers:
Ingo Molnar, Peter Zijlstra, Juri Lelli, Vincent Guittot, Linus Torvalds
On Mon 26-08-24 18:49:23, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 06:51:55PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
quoted
If a plan revert is preferably, I will go with it.There aren't any other users of PF_MEMALLOC_NOWARN and it definitely seems like something you want at a callsite rather than blanket for every allocation below this point. We don't seem to have many PF_ flags left, so let's not keep it around if there's no immediate plans for it.
Good point. What about this? --- From 923cd429d4b1a3520c93bcf46611ae74a3158865 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 21:15:02 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Revert "mm: introduce PF_MEMALLOC_NORECLAIM, PF_MEMALLOC_NOWARN" This reverts commit eab0af905bfc3e9c05da2ca163d76a1513159aa4. There is no existing user of those flags. PF_MEMALLOC_NOWARN is dangerous because a nested allocation context can use GFP_NOFAIL which could cause unexpected failure. Such a code would be hard to maintain because it could be deeper in the call chain. PF_MEMALLOC_NORECLAIM has been added even when it was pointed out [1] that such a allocation contex is inherently unsafe if the context doesn't fully control all allocations called from this context. While PF_MEMALLOC_NOWARN is not dangerous the way PF_MEMALLOC_NORECLAIM is it doesn't have any user and as Matthew has pointed out we are running out of those flags so better reclaim it without any real users. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZcM0xtlKbAOFjv5n@tiehlicka/ (local) Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> --- include/linux/sched.h | 4 ++-- include/linux/sched/mm.h | 17 ++++------------- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index f8d150343d42..731ff1078c9e 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h@@ -1657,8 +1657,8 @@ extern struct pid *cad_pid; * I am cleaning dirty pages from some other bdi. */ #define PF_KTHREAD 0x00200000 /* I am a kernel thread */ #define PF_RANDOMIZE 0x00400000 /* Randomize virtual address space */ -#define PF_MEMALLOC_NORECLAIM 0x00800000 /* All allocation requests will clear __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM */ -#define PF_MEMALLOC_NOWARN 0x01000000 /* All allocation requests will inherit __GFP_NOWARN */ +#define PF__HOLE__00800000 0x00800000 +#define PF__HOLE__01000000 0x01000000 #define PF__HOLE__02000000 0x02000000 #define PF_NO_SETAFFINITY 0x04000000 /* Userland is not allowed to meddle with cpus_mask */ #define PF_MCE_EARLY 0x08000000 /* Early kill for mce process policy */
diff --git a/include/linux/sched/mm.h b/include/linux/sched/mm.h
index 91546493c43d..07c4fde32827 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched/mm.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched/mm.h@@ -258,25 +258,16 @@ static inline gfp_t current_gfp_context(gfp_t flags) { unsigned int pflags = READ_ONCE(current->flags); - if (unlikely(pflags & (PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO | - PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS | - PF_MEMALLOC_NORECLAIM | - PF_MEMALLOC_NOWARN | - PF_MEMALLOC_PIN))) { + if (unlikely(pflags & (PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO | PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS | PF_MEMALLOC_PIN))) { /* - * Stronger flags before weaker flags: - * NORECLAIM implies NOIO, which in turn implies NOFS + * NOIO implies both NOIO and NOFS and it is a weaker context + * so always make sure it makes precedence */ - if (pflags & PF_MEMALLOC_NORECLAIM) - flags &= ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM; - else if (pflags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO) + if (pflags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO) flags &= ~(__GFP_IO | __GFP_FS); else if (pflags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS) flags &= ~__GFP_FS; - if (pflags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOWARN) - flags |= __GFP_NOWARN; - if (pflags & PF_MEMALLOC_PIN) flags &= ~__GFP_MOVABLE; }
--
2.46.0
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs