xiaomi-sm8450/android_kernel_xiaomi_sm8450
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

lockdep: fix fs_reclaim annotation

Browse Source 
While revisiting my Btrfs swapfile series [1], I introduced a situation
in which reclaim would lock i_rwsem, and even though the swapon() path
clearly made GFP_KERNEL allocations while holding i_rwsem, I got no
complaints from lockdep.  It turns out that the rework of the fs_reclaim
annotation was broken: if the current task has PF_MEMALLOC set, we don't
acquire the dummy fs_reclaim lock, but when reclaiming we always check
this _after_ we've just set the PF_MEMALLOC flag.  In most cases, we can
fix this by moving the fs_reclaim_{acquire,release}() outside of the
memalloc_noreclaim_{save,restore}(), althought kswapd is slightly
different.  After applying this, I got the expected lockdep splats.

1: https://lwn.net/Articles/625412/

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/9f8aa70652a98e98d7c4de0fc96a4addcee13efe.1523778026.git.osandov@fb.com
Fixes: d92a8cfcb3 ("locking/lockdep: Rework FS_RECLAIM annotation")
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
Omar Sandoval
2018-06-07 17:07:02 -07:00
committed by Linus Torvalds
parent 89fdcd262f
commit 93781325da
3 changed files with 32 additions and 12 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

20
mm/page_alloc.c
View File

@@ -3701,7 +3701,7 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_fla
#endif /* CONFIG_COMPACTION */
#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
struct lockdep_map __fs_reclaim_map =
static struct lockdep_map __fs_reclaim_map =
STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT("fs_reclaim", &__fs_reclaim_map);
static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
@@ -3726,17 +3726,27 @@ static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
return true;
}
void __fs_reclaim_acquire(void)
{
lock_map_acquire(&__fs_reclaim_map);
}
void __fs_reclaim_release(void)
{
lock_map_release(&__fs_reclaim_map);
}
void fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
lock_map_acquire(&__fs_reclaim_map);
__fs_reclaim_acquire();
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_acquire);
void fs_reclaim_release(gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
if (__need_fs_reclaim(gfp_mask))
lock_map_release(&__fs_reclaim_map);
__fs_reclaim_release();
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_reclaim_release);
#endif
@@ -3754,8 +3764,8 @@ __perform_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
/* We now go into synchronous reclaim */
cpuset_memory_pressure_bump();
noreclaim_flag = memalloc_noreclaim_save();
fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_mask);
noreclaim_flag = memalloc_noreclaim_save();
reclaim_state.reclaimed_slab = 0;
current->reclaim_state = &reclaim_state;
@@ -3763,8 +3773,8 @@ __perform_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
ac->nodemask);
current->reclaim_state = NULL;
fs_reclaim_release(gfp_mask);
memalloc_noreclaim_restore(noreclaim_flag);
fs_reclaim_release(gfp_mask);
cond_resched();