lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: kernel BUG at mm/slub.c:1447!
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:47:13 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:

> > The fourth best way of fixing this is a nasty short-term bodge, such a
> > the one you just sent ;) But if we're going to do this, it should be
> > the minimal bodge which fixes this deadlock. Is it possible to come up
> > with a one-liner (plus suitable comment) to get us out of this mess?
>
> Yes I do agree that the fix I am proposing is short-term but this seems
> like the easiest way to go for stable and older kernels that might be
> affected. I thought your proposal for mapping_gfp_constraint was exactly
> to have all such places annotated for an easier future transition to
> something more reasonable.

hm, OK, let's go that way. But I expect this mess will continue to
float around for a long time - fixing it nicely will be somewhat
intrusive.

> > Longer-term I suggest we look at generalising the memalloc_noio_foo()
> > stuff so as to permit callers to mask off (ie: zero) __GFP_ flags in
> > callees. I have a suspicion we should have done this 15 years ago
> > (which is about when I started wanting to do it).
>
> I am not sure memalloc_noio_foo is a huge win. It is an easy hack where
> the whole allocation transaction is clear - like in the PM code. I am
> not sure this is true also for the FS.

mm.. I think it'll work out OK - a set/restore around particular
callsites.

It might get messy in core MM though. Do we apply current->mask at the
very low levels of the page allocator? If so, that might muck up
intermediate callers who are peeking into specific gfp_t flags.

Perhaps it would be better to apply the mask at the highest possible
level: wherever a function which was not passed a gfp_t decides to
create one. Basically a grep for "GFP_". But then we need to decide
*which* gfp_t-creators need the treatment. All of them (yikes) or is
this mechanism only for called-via-address_space_operations code? That
might work.

Maybe it would be better to add the gfp_t argument to the
address_space_operations. At a minimum, writepage(), readpage(),
writepages(), readpages(). What a pickle.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-05 21:41    [W:0.057 / U:0.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site