Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: system_heap: do not warn for costly allocation

[John Stultz]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 9:48 AM Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 09:32:09AM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 8:26 AM Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Linux VM is not hard to support PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ODER allocation
> > > so normally expects driver passes __GFP_NOWARN in that case
> > > if they has fallback options.
> > >
> > > system_heap in dmabuf is the case so do not flood into demsg
> > > with the warning for recording more precious information logs.
> > > (below is ION warning example I got but dmabuf system heap is
> > > nothing different).
> > >
> > > [ 1233.911533][  T460] warn_alloc: 11 callbacks suppressed
> > > [ 1233.911539][  T460] allocator@2.0-s: page allocation failure: order:4, mode:0x140dc2(GFP_HIGHUSER|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_ZERO), nodemask=(null),cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0
> > > [ 1233.926235][  T460] Call trace:
> > > [ 1233.929370][  T460]  dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d8
> > > [ 1233.933704][  T460]  show_stack+0x18/0x24
> > > [ 1233.937701][  T460]  dump_stack+0xc0/0x140
> > > [ 1233.941783][  T460]  warn_alloc+0xf4/0x148
> > > [ 1233.945862][  T460]  __alloc_pages_slowpath+0x9fc/0xa10
> > > [ 1233.951101][  T460]  __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x278/0x2c0
> > > [ 1233.956285][  T460]  ion_page_pool_alloc+0xd8/0x100
> > > [ 1233.961144][  T460]  ion_system_heap_allocate+0xbc/0x2f0
> > > [ 1233.966440][  T460]  ion_buffer_create+0x68/0x274
> > > [ 1233.971130][  T460]  ion_buffer_alloc+0x8c/0x110
> > > [ 1233.975733][  T460]  ion_dmabuf_alloc+0x44/0xe8
> > > [ 1233.980248][  T460]  ion_ioctl+0x100/0x320
> > > [ 1233.984332][  T460]  __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x90/0xc8
> > > [ 1233.988934][  T460]  el0_svc_common+0x9c/0x168
> > > [ 1233.993360][  T460]  do_el0_svc+0x1c/0x28
> > > [ 1233.997358][  T460]  el0_sync_handler+0xd8/0x250
> > > [ 1234.001989][  T460]  el0_sync+0x148/0x180
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c | 9 +++++++--
> > >  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c
> > > index 29e49ac17251..33c25a5e06f9 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c
> > > @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ struct dma_heap_attachment {
> > >         bool mapped;
> > >  };
> > >
> > > -#define HIGH_ORDER_GFP  (((GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_NOWARN \
> > > +#define HIGH_ORDER_GFP  (((GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_ZERO \
> > >                                 | __GFP_NORETRY) & ~__GFP_RECLAIM) \
> > >                                 | __GFP_COMP)
> > >  #define LOW_ORDER_GFP (GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_COMP)
> > > @@ -315,6 +315,7 @@ static struct page *alloc_largest_available(unsigned long size,
> > >                                             unsigned int max_order)
> > >  {
> > >         struct page *page;
> > > +       unsigned long gfp_flags;
> > >         int i;
> > >
> > >         for (i = 0; i < NUM_ORDERS; i++) {
> > > @@ -323,7 +324,11 @@ static struct page *alloc_largest_available(unsigned long size,
> > >                 if (max_order < orders[i])
> > >                         continue;
> > >
> > > -               page = alloc_pages(order_flags[i], orders[i]);
> > > +               gfp_flags = order_flags[i];
> > > +               if (orders[i] > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
> > > +                       gfp_flags |= __GFP_NOWARN;
> > > +
> > > +               page = alloc_pages(gfp_flags, orders[i]);
> >
> > Would it be cleaner to just set up the flags properly in the
> > order_flags array? I'm not sure I understand why your patch does it
> > dynamically?
>
> That's exactly I had in my branch for aosp fix but I wanted to
> hear it explicitly from dmabuf maintainer since I was worried
> chaninging order-4 allocation behavior, especially,
> __GFP_NORETRY and &~__GFP_RECLAIM.
> (It will make allocation failure easier than old and that's not
> thing my patch is addressing).

Yea. I might stick to changing just the __GFP_NOWARN.

> If you want this, I am happy to change it. Shall I?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c
> index 29e49ac17251..865ec847013d 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c
> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ struct dma_heap_attachment {
>                                 | __GFP_NORETRY) & ~__GFP_RECLAIM) \
>                                 | __GFP_COMP)
>  #define LOW_ORDER_GFP (GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_COMP)
> -static gfp_t order_flags[] = {HIGH_ORDER_GFP, LOW_ORDER_GFP, LOW_ORDER_GFP};
> +static gfp_t order_flags[] = {HIGH_ORDER_GFP, HIGH_ORDER_GFP, LOW_ORDER_GFP};

Maybe can you define a MID_ORDER_GFP as LOW_ORDER | __GFP_NOWARN
(along with a comment in the code as to why) instead ?

That avoids introducing any subtle behavioral change unintentionally.

thanks
-john