linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] page-allocator: Ensure that processes that have been OOM killed exit the page allocator (resend)

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: <20090717092157.GA9835@csn.ul.ie>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:21:57 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] page-allocator: Ensure that processes that have been
	OOM killed exit the page allocator (resend)

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:14:13PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 4b8552e..b381a6b 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -1830,8 +1830,6 @@ rebalance:
> >  			if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER &&
> >  						!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
> >  				goto nopage;
> > -
> > -			goto restart;
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  
> > 
> 
> This isn't right (and not only because it'll add a compiler warning 
> because `restart' is now unused).
> 
> This would immediately fail any allocation that triggered the oom killer 
> and ended up being selected that isn't __GFP_NOFAIL, even if it would have 
> succeeded without even killing any task simply because it allocates 
> without watermarks.
> 
> It will also, coupled with your earlier patch, inappropriately warn about 
> an infinite loop with __GFP_NOFAIL even though it hasn't even attempted to 
> loop once since that decision is now handled by should_alloc_retry().
> 
> The liklihood of such an infinite loop, considering only one thread per 
> system (or cpuset) can be TIF_MEMDIE at a time, is very low.  I've never 
> seen memory reserves completely depleted such that the next high-priority 
> allocation wouldn't succeed so that current could handle its pending 
> SIGKILL.
> 
> You get the same behavior with my patch, but are allowed to try the high 
> priority allocation again for the attempt that triggered the oom killer 
> (and not only subsequent ones).

Ok, lets go with this patch then. Thanks

> ---
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1789,6 +1789,10 @@ rebalance:
>  	if (p->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
>  		goto nopage;
>  
> +	/* Avoid allocations with no watermarks from looping endlessly */
> +	if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
> +		goto nopage;
> +
>  	/* Try direct reclaim and then allocating */
>  	page = __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim(gfp_mask, order,
>  					zonelist, high_zoneidx,
> 

-- 
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/