linux-ext4 - Re: [patch 1/5] mm: add nofail variants of kmalloc kcalloc and kzalloc

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]

Message-ID: <1282743090.2605.3696.camel@laptop>
Date:	Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:31:30 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	"cluster-devel@...hat.com" <cluster-devel@...hat.com>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	"reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org" <reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] mm: add nofail variants of kmalloc kcalloc and
 kzalloc

On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 09:20 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Also, there's a good reason for disliking (a), its a deadlock scenario,
> > suppose we need to write out data to get free pages, but the writing out
> > is blocked on requiring free pages.
> > 
> > There's really nothing the page allocator can do to help you there, its
> > a situation you have to avoid getting into.
> 
> Well, if all of these users start having their own private pools of
> emergency memory, I'm not sure that's such a great idea either.
> 
> And in some cases, there *is* extra memory.  For example, if the
> reason why the page allocator failed is because there isn't enough
> memory in the current process's cgroup, maybe it's important enough
> that the kernel code might decide to say, "violate the cgroup
> constraints --- it's more important that we not bring down the entire
> system" than to honor whatever yahoo decided that a particular cgroup
> has been set down to something ridiculous like 512mb, when there's
> plenty of free physical memory --- but not in that cgroup.

I'm not sure, but I think the cgroup thing doesn't account kernel
allocations, in which case the above problem doesn't exist.

For the cpuset case we punch through the cpuset constraints for kernel
allocations (unless __GFP_HARDWALL).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html