linux-kernel - Re: [patch 08/11 -mmotm] oom: invoke oom killer 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: <28c262360905110423n4878edc5k69a89d67ef1ab501@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 May 2009 20:23:20 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	San Mehat <san@...roid.com>, Arve Hjonnevag <arve@...roid.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 08/11 -mmotm] oom: invoke oom killer for __GFP_NOFAIL

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 5:49 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2009, Minchan Kim wrote:
>
>> I agree KOSAKI's opinion.
>> We already have a different flags.
>>
>>  * __GFP_REPEAT: Try hard to allocate the memory, but the allocation attempt
>>  * _might_ fail.  This depends upon the particular VM implementation.
>>  *
>>  * __GFP_NOFAIL: The VM implementation _must_ retry infinitely: the caller
>>  * cannot handle allocation failures.
>>
>> When we use __GFP_NOFAIL, we always have to use it carefully.
>> If you change the meaning of __GFP_NOFAIL, the intension of them who have been used it carefully  may be lost. It's my concern.
>>
>
> You pointed out yourself that __GFP_NOFAIL allocations can fail by way of
> having alloc_pages() return NULL even without attempting to free memory by
> the oom killer for order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER.  The definition you
> posted above is unambiguous to me, it means we must retry infinitely.  And
> that's very stupid if we are going to neglect to free memory by killing a
> task and relying solely on reclaim which may not make any progress.
>

Sorry for confusing. Ignore me, please.
I misunderstood your description as I said previous post. :)

-- 
Kinds regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/