linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #13319] Page allocation failures with b43 and p54usb

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: <20090608133520.GC15070@csn.ul.ie>
Date:	Mon, 8 Jun 2009 14:35:20 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [Bug #13319] Page allocation failures with b43 and p54usb

On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 09:20:23AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Mel Gorman wrote:
>
>> We've encountered this before and the conclusion was that the current
>> adjustments for watermark calculations of high-order allocations is right,
>> or at least there is no better alternative. In other words, the page
>> allocator in this instance is behaving as expected. Do we want to
>> revisit that discussion as to whether the watermark calculations for
>> high-order allocation should change? I think we'll reach the same
>> conclusion or at least decide that allowing the order-1 atomic
>> allocation to succeed here would just postpone the problem.
>
> It would not just postpone the problem, it would also
> bring the system closer to a state where kswapd does
> something about the order-1 free areas.
>
> This might postpone the problem indefinately.
>

How do you figure it does not just postpone the problem? If there are a batch
of order-1 allocations that come in like this, it will eventually deplete
the higher-order pages and then fail because kswapd is not getting woken up.

Minimally, if we were to ignore the watermarks, there would need to be logic
that says

	"If a high-order allocation would fail due to high-order watermarks
	not being met, but the watermarks are ok from an order-0 perspective
	and the high-order page is available, then grant the allocation but
	wake up kswapd as if the order-1 allocation had failed to get the
	high-order watermarks back in shape"

> Currently the system fails early, without kswapd
> kicking in and freeing new order-1 areas.
>

If the allocation was granted, then kswapd will still not kick in.

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/