linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm-slab: allocate kmem_cache with __GFP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:43:42 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Cc:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm-slab: allocate kmem_cache with __GFP_REPEAT

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 04:14:51PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> >Order of sizeof(struct kmem_cache) can be bigger than PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER,
> >thus there is a good chance of unsuccessful allocation.
> >With __GFP_REPEAT buddy-allocator will reclaim/compact memory more aggressively.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
> >---
> >mm/slab.c |    2 +-
> >1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> >index d96e223..53bddc8 100644
> >--- a/mm/slab.c
> >+++ b/mm/slab.c
> >@@ -2304,7 +2304,7 @@ kmem_cache_create (const char *name, size_t size, size_t align,
> >		gfp = GFP_NOWAIT;
> >
> >	/* Get cache's description obj. */
> >-	cachep = kmem_cache_zalloc(&cache_cache, gfp);
> >+	cachep = kmem_cache_zalloc(&cache_cache, gfp | __GFP_REPEAT);
> >	if (!cachep)
> >		goto oops;
> 
> The changelog isn't that convincing, really. This is
> kmem_cache_create() so I'm surprised we'd ever get NULL here in
> practice. Does this fix some problem you're seeing? If this is
> really an issue, I'd blame the page allocator as GFP_KERNEL should
> just work.
> 

Besides, is allocating from cache_cache really a
PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER allocation? On my laptop at least, it's an
order-2 allocation which is supporting up to 512 CPUs and 512 nodes.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/