[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:19:38AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 16-09-20 23:43:02, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > I can
> > then figure out whether it's better to risk not spotting issues with
> > call_rcu vs slapping a memalloc_noio_save/restore around all these
> > critical section which force-degrades any allocation to GFP_ATOMIC at
> did you mean memalloc_noreclaim_* here?

Yeah I picked the wrong one of that family of functions.

> > most, but has the risk that we run into code that assumes "GFP_KERNEL
> > never fails for small stuff" and has a decidedly less tested fallback
> > path than rcu code.
> Even if the above then please note that memalloc_noreclaim_* or
> PF_MEMALLOC should be used with an extreme care. Essentially only for
> internal memory reclaimers. It grants access to _all_ the available
> memory so any abuse can be detrimental to the overall system operation.
> Allocation failure in this mode means that we are out of memory and any
> code relying on such an allocation has to carefuly consider failure.
> This is not a random allocation mode.

Agreed, that's why I don't like having these kind of automagic critical
sections. It's a bit a shotgun approach. Paul said that the code would
handle failures, but the problem is that it applies everywhere.

Anyway my understanding is that call_rcu will be reworked and gain a pile
of tricks so that these problems for the callchains leading to call_rcu
all disappear.
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-29 11:01    [W:0.301 / U:2.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site