linux-kernel - Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] oom-kill: fix NUMA consraint check with nodemask v2

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: <20091110170338.9f3bb417.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
Date:	Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:03:38 +0900
From:	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] oom-kill: fix NUMA consraint check with
 nodemask v2

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:40:55 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:39:02 +0900 (JST)
> KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Check this allocation failure is caused by cpuset's wall function */
> > > > > +	for_each_zone_zonelist_nodemask(zone, z, zonelist,
> > > > > +			high_zoneidx, nodemask)
> > > > > +		if (!cpuset_zone_allowed_softwall(zone, gfp_mask))
> > > > >  			return CONSTRAINT_CPUSET;
> > > > 
> > > > If cpuset and MPOL_BIND are both used, Probably CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY is
> > > > better choice.
> > > 
> > > No. this memory allocation is failed by limitation of cpuset's alloc mask.
> > > Not from mempolicy.
> > 
> > But CONSTRAINT_CPUSET doesn't help to free necessary node memory. It isn't
> > your fault. original code is wrong too. but I hope we should fix it.
> > 
I think so too.

> Hmm, maybe fair enough.
> 
> My 3rd version will use "kill always current(CONSTRAINT_MEMPOLICY does this)
> if it uses mempolicy" logic.
> 
"if it uses mempoicy" ?
You mean "kill allways current if memory allocation has failed by limitation of
cpuset's mask"(i.e. CONSTRAINT_CPUSET case) ?


Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.
--
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/