linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/3 -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: <20090601225602.3482cd0d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 1 Jun 2009 22:56:02 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	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>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3 -mmotm] oom: invoke oom killer for __GFP_NOFAIL

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 18:31:14 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:

> The oom killer must be invoked regardless of the order if the allocation
> is __GFP_NOFAIL, otherwise it will loop forever when reclaim fails to
> free some memory.
> 
> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> ---
>  mm/page_alloc.c |   12 +++++++-----
>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1547,7 +1547,7 @@ __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>  		goto out;
>  
>  	/* The OOM killer will not help higher order allocs */
> -	if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
> +	if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
>  		goto out;
>  
>  	/* Exhausted what can be done so it's blamo time */
> @@ -1765,11 +1765,13 @@ rebalance:
>  				goto got_pg;
>  
>  			/*
> -			 * The OOM killer does not trigger for high-order allocations
> -			 * but if no progress is being made, there are no other
> -			 * options and retrying is unlikely to help
> +			 * The OOM killer does not trigger for high-order
> +			 * ~__GFP_NOFAIL allocations so if no progress is being
> +			 * made, there are no other options and retrying is
> +			 * unlikely to help.
>  			 */
> -			if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
> +			if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER &&
> +						!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
>  				goto nopage;
>  
>  			goto restart;

I really think/hope/expect that this is unneeded.

Do we know of any callsites which do greater-than-order-0 allocations
with GFP_NOFAIL?  If so, we should fix them.

Then just ban order>0 && GFP_NOFAIL allocations.
--
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/