Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc.c: avoid inheritting current's flags when invoked in interrupt

From: Xu, Yanfei
Date: Tue Sep 15 2020 - 23:48:06 EST




On 9/16/20 9:17 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:56:35 +0800 <yanfei.xu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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