linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/6] MM: improve documentation for __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]

Message-ID: <YVwyhDnE/HEnoLAi@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 5 Oct 2021 13:09:56 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        ". Dave Chinner" <david@...morbit.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] MM: improve documentation for __GFP_NOFAIL

On Tue 05-10-21 11:20:51, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]
> > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > @@ -209,7 +209,11 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> >   * used only when there is no reasonable failure policy) but it is
> >   * definitely preferable to use the flag rather than opencode endless
> >   * loop around allocator.
> > - * Using this flag for costly allocations is _highly_ discouraged.
> > + * Use of this flag may lead to deadlocks if locks are held which would
> > + * be needed for memory reclaim, write-back, or the timely exit of a
> > + * process killed by the OOM-killer.  Dropping any locks not absolutely
> > + * needed is advisable before requesting a %__GFP_NOFAIL allocate.
> > + * Using this flag for costly allocations (order>1) is _highly_ discouraged.
> 
> We define costly as 3, not 1. But sure it's best to avoid even order>0 for
> __GFP_NOFAIL. Advising order>1 seems arbitrary though?

This is not completely arbitrary. We have a warning for any higher order
allocation.
rmqueue:
	WARN_ON_ONCE((gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL) && (order > 1));

I do agree that "Using this flag for higher order allocations is
_highly_ discouraged.


> >   */
> >  #define __GFP_IO	((__force gfp_t)___GFP_IO)
> >  #define __GFP_FS	((__force gfp_t)___GFP_FS)
> > 
> > 
> > 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs