Skip to content
Commit f920e413 authored by Daniel Vetter's avatar Daniel Vetter Committed by Linus Torvalds
Browse files

mm: track mmu notifiers in fs_reclaim_acquire/release

fs_reclaim_acquire/release nicely catch recursion issues when allocating
GFP_KERNEL memory against shrinkers (which gpu drivers tend to use to keep
the excessive caches in check).  For mmu notifier recursions we do have
lockdep annotations since 23b68395 ("mm/mmu_notifiers: add a lockdep
map for invalidate_range_start/end").

But these only fire if a path actually results in some pte invalidation -
for most small allocations that's very rarely the case.  The other trouble
is that pte invalidation can happen any time when __GFP_RECLAIM is set.
Which means only really GFP_ATOMIC is a safe choice, GFP_NOIO isn't good
enough to avoid potential mmu notifier recursion.

I was pondering whether we should just do the general annotation, but
there's always the risk for false positives.  Plus I'm assuming that the
core fs and io code is a lot better reviewed and tested than random mmu
notifier code in drivers.  Hence why I decide to only annotate for that
specific case.

Furthermore even if we'd create a lockdep map for direct reclaim, we'd
still need to explicit pull in the mmu notifier map - there's a lot more
places that do pte invalidation than just direct reclaim, these two
contexts arent the same.

Note that the mmu notifiers needing their own independent lockdep map is
also the reason we can't hold them from fs_reclaim_acquire to
fs_reclaim_release - it would nest with the acquistion in the pte
invalidation code, causing a lockdep splat.  And we can't remove the
annotations from pte invalidation and all the other places since they're
called from many other places than page reclaim.  Hence we can only do the
equivalent of might_lock, but on the raw lockdep map.

With this we can also remove the lockdep priming added in 66204f1d


("mm/mmu_notifiers: prime lockdep") since the new annotations are strictly
more powerful.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201125162532.1299794-2-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarJason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Cc: Thomas Hellström (Intel) <thomas_os@shipmail.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
parent 871402e0
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment