linux-kernel - Re: [patch 07/12] mm: page_alloc: inline should_alloc

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:18:30 -0400
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [patch 07/12] mm: page_alloc: inline should_alloc_retry()

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 03:11:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 25-03-15 02:17:11, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > The should_alloc_retry() function was meant to encapsulate retry
> > conditions of the allocator slowpath, but there are still checks
> > remaining in the main function, and much of how the retrying is
> > performed also depends on the OOM killer progress.  The physical
> > separation of those conditions make the code hard to follow.
> > 
> > Inline the should_alloc_retry() checks.  Notes:
> > 
> > - The __GFP_NOFAIL check is already done in __alloc_pages_may_oom(),
> >   replace it with looping on OOM killer progress
> > 
> > - The pm_suspended_storage() check is meant to skip the OOM killer
> >   when reclaim has no IO available, move to __alloc_pages_may_oom()
> > 
> > - The order < PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY order is re-united with its original
> >   counterpart of checking whether reclaim actually made any progress
> 
> it should be order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY

Oops, thanks for catching that.  I'll fix it in v2.

> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> 
> The resulting code looks much better and logical.
> 
> After the COSTLY check is fixed.
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>

Thank you
--
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/