Message ID | 20200915075635.1112-1-yanfei.xu@windriver.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | mm/page_alloc.c: avoid inheritting current's flags when invoked in interrupt | expand |
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:56:35 +0800 <yanfei.xu@windriver.com> wrote: > From: Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@windriver.com> > > alloc_mask shouldn't inherit the current task's flags when > __alloc_pages_nodemask is invoked in interrupt. > > ... > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -4889,7 +4889,8 @@ __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int preferred_nid, > * from a particular context which has been marked by > * memalloc_no{fs,io}_{save,restore}. > */ > - alloc_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask); > + if (!in_interrupt()) > + alloc_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask); > ac.spread_dirty_pages = false; > > /* hm, yes, and perhaps other callsites in page_alloc.c. I assume this doesn't actually make any runtime difference? Because gfp_mask in interrupt contexts isn't going to have __GFP_IO or __GFP_FS anyway.
On 9/16/20 9:17 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:56:35 +0800 <yanfei.xu@windriver.com> wrote: > >> From: Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@windriver.com> >> >> alloc_mask shouldn't inherit the current task's flags when >> __alloc_pages_nodemask is invoked in interrupt. >> >> ... >> >> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c >> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c >> @@ -4889,7 +4889,8 @@ __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int preferred_nid, >> * from a particular context which has been marked by >> * memalloc_no{fs,io}_{save,restore}. >> */ >> - alloc_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask); >> + if (!in_interrupt()) >> + alloc_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask); >> ac.spread_dirty_pages = false; >> >> /* > > hm, yes, and perhaps other callsites in page_alloc.c. > > I assume this doesn't actually make any runtime difference? Because > gfp_mask in interrupt contexts isn't going to have __GFP_IO or __GFP_FS > anyway. > Thanks for your reply! Yes, It doesn't make any runtime difference. Theoretically, GPF_ATOMIC or GFP_NOWAIT should be used in interrupt context for allocate pages, so that gfp_mask isn't going to have __GFP_IO or __GFP_FS. But if somebody use wrong gfp_masks, __GFP_IO or __GFP_FS will be introduced, with the process interrupted has PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO or PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS, current_gfp_context may help to hide these wrong usages. I don't think it is the original purpose of that piece of codes. And how about add BUG_ON or WARN_ON to figure out the situation which introduce __GFP_IO or __GFP_FS in interrupt context? Regards, Yanfei
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c index fab5e97dc9ca..388b587b35a8 100644 --- a/mm/page_alloc.c +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c @@ -4889,7 +4889,8 @@ __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int preferred_nid, * from a particular context which has been marked by * memalloc_no{fs,io}_{save,restore}. */ - alloc_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask); + if (!in_interrupt()) + alloc_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask); ac.spread_dirty_pages = false; /*