GFP_TEMPORARY was introduced by commit e12ba74d8f ("Group short-lived
and reclaimable kernel allocations") along with __GFP_RECLAIMABLE. It's
primary motivation was to allow users to tell that an allocation is
short lived and so the allocator can try to place such allocations close
together and prevent long term fragmentation. As much as this sounds
like a reasonable semantic it becomes much less clear when to use the
highlevel GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag. How long is temporary? Can the
context holding that memory sleep? Can it take locks? It seems there is
no good answer for those questions.
The current implementation of GFP_TEMPORARY is basically GFP_KERNEL |
__GFP_RECLAIMABLE which in itself is tricky because basically none of
the existing caller provide a way to reclaim the allocated memory. So
this is rather misleading and hard to evaluate for any benefits.
I have checked some random users and none of them has added the flag
with a specific justification. I suspect most of them just copied from
other existing users and others just thought it might be a good idea to
use without any measuring. This suggests that GFP_TEMPORARY just
motivates for cargo cult usage without any reasoning.
I believe that our gfp flags are quite complex already and especially
those with highlevel semantic should be clearly defined to prevent from
confusion and abuse. Therefore I propose dropping GFP_TEMPORARY and
replace all existing users to simply use GFP_KERNEL. Please note that
SLAB users with shrinkers will still get __GFP_RECLAIMABLE heuristic and
so they will be placed properly for memory fragmentation prevention.
I can see reasons we might want some gfp flag to reflect shorterm
allocations but I propose starting from a clear semantic definition and
only then add users with proper justification.
This was been brought up before LSF this year by Matthew [1] and it
turned out that GFP_TEMPORARY really doesn't have a clear semantic. It
seems to be a heuristic without any measured advantage for most (if not
all) its current users. The follow up discussion has revealed that
opinions on what might be temporary allocation differ a lot between
developers. So rather than trying to tweak existing users into a
semantic which they haven't expected I propose to simply remove the flag
and start from scratch if we really need a semantic for short term
allocations.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170118054945.GD18349@bombadil.infradead.org
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix typo]
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding-style fixes]
[sfr@canb.auug.org.au: drm/i915: fix up]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170816144703.378d4f4d@canb.auug.org.au
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170728091904.14627-1-mhocko@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Use a timeout rather than a fixed number of loops to avoid running for
very long periods, such as under the kbuilder VMs.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170310105733.6444-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Currently each thread starts an acquire context only once, and
performs all its loop iterations under it.
This means that the Wound/Wait relations between threads are fixed.
To make things a little more realistic and cover more of the
functionality with the test, open a new acquire context for each loop.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Because there are only 12 bits in held_lock::references, so we only
support 4095 nested lock held in the same time, adjust the lock number
for ww_mutex stress test to kill one lockdep splat:
[ ] [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
[ ] kworker/u2:0/5 is trying to release lock (ww_class_mutex) at:
[ ] ww_mutex_unlock()
[ ] but there are no more locks to release!
...
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170301150138.hdixnmafzfsox7nn@tardis.cn.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
When busy-spinning on a ww_mutex_trylock(), we depend upon the other
thread advancing and releasing the lock. This can not happen on a single
CPU unless we relinquish it:
[ ] NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 22s! [kworker/0:1:18]
...
[ ] Call Trace:
[ ] mutex_trylock()
[ ] test_mutex_work+0x31/0x56
[ ] process_one_work+0x1b4/0x2f9
[ ] worker_thread+0x1b0/0x27c
[ ] kthread+0xd1/0xd3
[ ] ret_from_fork+0x19/0x30
Reported-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Fixes: f2a5fec173 ("locking/ww_mutex: Begin kselftests for ww_mutex")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170228094011.2595-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Check that ww_mutexes can detect cyclic deadlocks (generalised ABBA
cycles) and resolve them by lock reordering.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <dev@mblankhorst.nl>
Cc: Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161201114711.28697-7-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
