linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/6] mm: Introduce __GFP_NO_OOM

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: <200905120014.24751.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Tue, 12 May 2009 00:14:23 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...onice.net>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/6] mm: Introduce __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL

On Monday 11 May 2009, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > Index: linux-2.6/mm/page_alloc.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -1619,8 +1619,12 @@ nofail_alloc:
> >  			goto got_pg;
> >  		}
> >  
> > -		/* The OOM killer will not help higher order allocs so fail */
> > -		if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * The OOM killer will not help higher order allocs so fail.
> > +		 * Also fail if the caller doesn't want the OOM killer to run.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER
> > +				|| (gfp_mask & __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL)) {
> >  			clear_zonelist_oom(zonelist, gfp_mask);
> >  			goto nopage;
> >  		}
> > Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/gfp.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/gfp.h
> > +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/gfp.h
> > @@ -51,8 +51,9 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> >  #define __GFP_THISNODE	((__force gfp_t)0x40000u)/* No fallback, no policies */
> >  #define __GFP_RECLAIMABLE ((__force gfp_t)0x80000u) /* Page is reclaimable */
> >  #define __GFP_MOVABLE	((__force gfp_t)0x100000u)  /* Page is movable */
> > +#define __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL ((__force gfp_t)0x200000u)  /* Don't invoke out_of_memory() */
> >  
> > -#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT 21	/* Room for 21 __GFP_FOO bits */
> > +#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT 22	/* Number of __GFP_FOO bits */
> >  #define __GFP_BITS_MASK ((__force gfp_t)((1 << __GFP_BITS_SHIFT) - 1))
> >  
> >  /* This equals 0, but use constants in case they ever change */
> > 
> 
> Nack, unnecessary in mmotm and my patch series from 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/10/118.

Andrew, what's your opinion, please?

I can wait with these patches until the dust settles in the mm land.

David, which patch in your series causes this to be unnecessary?

Best,
Rafael
--
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/