linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vmscan: don't use return value trick when oom_killer

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]

Date:	Fri, 3 Sep 2010 13:28:27 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	"M. Vefa Bicakci" <bicave@...eronline.com>, stable@...nel.org,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: don't use return value trick when oom_killer_disabled

2010/9/3 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>:
> On Thursday, September 02, 2010, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> M. Vefa Bicakci reported 2.6.35 kernel hang up when hibernation on his
>> 32bit 3GB mem machine. (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16771)
>> Also he was bisected first bad commit is below
>>
>>   commit bb21c7ce18eff8e6e7877ca1d06c6db719376e3c
>>   Author: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
>>   Date:   Fri Jun 4 14:15:05 2010 -0700
>>
>>      vmscan: fix do_try_to_free_pages() return value when priority==0 reclaim failure
>>
>> At first impression, this seemed very strange because the above commit only
>> chenged function return value and hibernate_preallocate_memory() ignore
>> return value of shrink_all_memory(). But it's related.
>>
>> Now, page allocation from hibernation code may enter infinite loop if
>> the system has highmem.
>>
>> The reasons are two. 1) hibernate_preallocate_memory() call
>> alloc_pages() wrong order
>
> This isn't the case, as explained here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/9/1/316 .
>
> The ordering of calls is correct, but it's better to check if there are any
> non-highmem pages to allocate from before the last call (for performance
> reasons, but that also would eliminate the failure in question).

I actually didn't look into the 1) problem detail.
Just copy and paste from KOSAKI's description.
As I look the thread, KOSAKI seem to admit the description is wrong.
I will resend the patch removing phrase about 1) problem if KOSAKI don't mind.
KOSAKI. Is it okay?

Thanks.


-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/