Re: [RFC-PATCH 1/2] mm: Add __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 09:33:47PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14 2020 at 11:02, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 07:49:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 09:11:06AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, please see below
> >> > for an untested patch that illustrates how I was interpreting your words.
> >> > Was this what you had in mind?
> >> 
> >> No, definitely not.
> >> 
> >> Also, since we used to be able to use call_rcu() _everywhere_, including
> >> under zone->lock, how's that working with you calling the
> >> page-allocating from it?
> >
> > Indeed, that is exactly the problem we are trying to solve.
> 
> Wait a moment. Why are we discussing RT induced raw non raw lock
> ordering at all?

Because we like to argue?  (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

> Whatever kernel you variant you look at this is not working:
> 
>   lock(zone)  call_rcu() lock(zone)
> 
> It's a simple recursive dead lock, nothing else.

You are of course absolutely correct.

> And that enforces the GFP_NOLOCK allocation mode or some other solution
> unless you make a new rule that calling call_rcu() is forbidden while
> holding zone lock or any other lock which might be nested inside the
> GFP_NOWAIT zone::lock held region.

Again, you are correct.  Maybe the forecasted weekend heat will cause
my brain to hallucinate a better solution, but in the meantime, the
GFP_NOLOCK approach looks good from this end.

							Thanx, Paul