linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/17] arm: get rid of superfluous __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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:59:00 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/17] arm: get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:24:24 +0100 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:14:46AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> > 
> > __GFP_REPEAT has a rather weak semantic but since it has been introduced
> > around 2.6.12 it has been ignored for low order allocations.
> > 
> > PGALLOC_GFP uses __GFP_REPEAT but none of the allocation which uses
> > this flag is for more than order-2. This means that this flag has never
> > been actually useful here because it has always been used only for
> > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY requests.
> 
> I hear what you say, but...
> 
> commit 8c65da6dc89ccb605d73773b1dd617e72982d971
> Author: Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>
> Date:   Sat Nov 30 12:52:31 2013 +0000
> 
>     ARM: pgd allocation: retry on failure
> 
>     Make pgd allocation retry on failure; we really need this to succeed
>     otherwise fork() can trigger OOMs.
> 
>     Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>
> 
> and that's the change which introduced this, and it did solve a problem
> for me.  So I'm not happy to give an ack for this change unless someone
> can tell me why adding __GFP_REPEAT back then had a beneficial effect.
> Maybe there was some other bug in the MM layer in 2013 which this change
> happened to solve?

I suspect that some other change has made arm's use of __GFP_REPEAT
unnecessary, because __GFP_REPEAT is now a no-op for order-0,1,2,3
allocations and none of the arm callsites which I can see are using
order-4 or higher.

So I think we should go ahead with this change.  If that causes some
problem then we'll need to dig in and figure out why the impossible
just happened, OK?